United States v. Sinclair

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Sinclair

31 F. App'x 232

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 2002

Docket01-4588

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 F. App'x 232 (United States v. Sinclair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Sinclair, 31 F. App'x 232 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Weldon Bernard Sinclair appeals his conviction and sentence on the ground that at the time of sentencing, the district court should have revisited the issue of his competence to plead guilty. In support of his claim, he presented the medical report of a neuro-psychologist who opined that Sinclair suffers from significant deficits in cognitive ability and information processing. However, the psychologist also opined that Sinclair was competent to plead when he did so and was competent to proceed with the resolution of his case, so long as special care was taken to make sure he understood. 1

Because there were no abnormalities in Sinclair’s Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 plea colloquy such that the district court should have questioned Sinclair further as to his mental competency, and given the opinions in the expert’s report as to Sinclair’s competency, we find no error by the district court in failing to revisit the issue of Sinclair’s competency at sentencing. 2 Accordingly, we affirm Sinclair’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

1

. We note that both the district court and counsel took special care to fully explain to Sinclair the proceedings against him and the effect of his plea on his rights.

2

. Sinclair's reliance upon United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561 (4th Cir.1999), is misplaced. In Damon, we remanded for further inquiry into Damon’s competence because he, unlike Sinclair, testified at his plea colloquy that he was under the influence of anti-depressant medication, which in some circumstances is known to impair judgment. Here there were no circumstances present which required the district court to conduct a more searching inquiry into Sinclair's competence.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Weldon Bernard Sinclair appeals his conviction and sentence on the ground that at the time of sentencing, the district court should have revisited the issue of his competence to plead guilty. In support of his claim, he presented the medical report of a neuro-psychologist who opined that Sinclair suffers from significant deficits in cognitive ability and information processing. However, the psychologist also opined that Sinclair was competent to plead when he did so and was competent to proceed with the resolution of his case, so long as special care was taken to make sure he understood. 1

Because there were no abnormalities in Sinclair’s Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 plea colloquy such that the district court should have questioned Sinclair further as to his mental competency, and given the opinions in the expert’s report as to Sinclair’s competency, we find no error by the district court in failing to revisit the issue of Sinclair’s competency at sentencing. 2 Accordingly, we affirm Sinclair’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

1

. We note that both the district court and counsel took special care to fully explain to Sinclair the proceedings against him and the effect of his plea on his rights.

2

. Sinclair's reliance upon United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561 (4th Cir.1999), is misplaced. In Damon, we remanded for further inquiry into Damon’s competence because he, unlike Sinclair, testified at his plea colloquy that he was under the influence of anti-depressant medication, which in some circumstances is known to impair judgment. Here there were no circumstances present which required the district court to conduct a more searching inquiry into Sinclair's competence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 F. App'x 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sinclair-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack