United States v. Gary Lindley

774 F.2d 993, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 24374

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 24, 1985
• Docket: 85-5009
• Status: Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Gary Lindley appeals his conviction for attempting to escape from the Lompoc Federal Penitentiary in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751 (1982). His sole contention on appeal is that the district court erred in finding him competent to stand trial.

We affirm the conviction because the district court’s determination that Lindley was competent to stand trial is not clearly erroneous.

* The district court relied upon the declarations of two psychiatrists who concluded after examining Lindley that he was competent to stand trial. The district court did not clearly err in assigning more weight to the findings of these psychiatrists than to the contrary conclusion of a psychiatrist retained by the defense.

We find unpersuasive Lindley’s contention that the psychiatric reports relied upon by the district court had no probative value because of a lapse of time between the examinations and the competency hearing, which was conducted just before trial. Lindley’s own psychiatrist admitted that the lapse of time did not render the reports invalid as a basis for determining his competency to stand trial. Further, Lindley offered no proof of a change in mental condition in the intervening months and refused to submit to further examinations.

AFFIRMED.

In Chavez v. United States, 656 F.2d 512, 517 (9th Cir.1981), we held that the issue of competency to stand trial is reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard. We believe Chavez was not undermined by our en banc decision in United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984). Under the McConney functional analysis, competency to stand trial involves an "essentially factual inquiry", 728 F.2d at 1203 (quoting Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 288, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1790, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982)), which calls for clearly erroneous review.