USA V. MOSES SHEPARD, No. 12-10253 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 18 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-10253 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS D.C. No. 4:10-cr-01032-CKJ-1 v. MEMORANDUM* MOSES ANTONIO SHEPARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 12, 2014 San Francisco, California Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Defendant Moses Antonio Shepard appeals from his conviction for interstate stalking and cyberstalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(1) and (2)(A). We affirm. 1. The district court did not err in allowing Defendant to invoke his right to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Assuming without deciding that Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), established an affirmative requirement to determine a defendant s competency to represent himself, the court did not err in finding Defendant competent to represent himself after holding a hearing and observing Defendant. Defendant appeared intelligent and educated, had no history of mental illness and suffered only from "grandiosity" and some obsessive behavior, clearly understood the proceedings and procedures, participated extensively in pretrial matters, and chose a rational (if illadvised) trial strategy. 2. The district court set appropriate limitations during trial preparation. Defendant had reasonable access to the materials and means necessary to prepare a defense. For example, Defendant received seven continuances, the assistance of advisory counsel, and access to sufficient resources. 3. The statutes of conviction are not unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Osinger, No. 11-50338, 2014 WL 2498131, at *3 7 (9th Cir. June 4, 2014). AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.