U.S. v. Williams

Decision Date26 January 2004
Docket NumberNo. 02-30209.,02-30209.
Citation356 F.3d 1045
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel R. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Steven Jacobson, Federal Public Defender, Portland, OR, for the defendant-appellant.

Frank Noonan, Assistant United States Attorney, Portland, OR, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-00-00572-AJB.

Before: GOODWIN, HUG, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

BERZON, Circuit Judge:

Daniel Williams pled guilty, pursuant to an agreement with the United States Attorney, to one count of transmitting a communication in interstate commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).1 Williams was sentenced in June 2002 to fifteen months in prison — amounting to time served as he had been in federal custody since March 2000 — and to three years of supervised release. As a condition of Williams' supervised release, the district judge required that he

take such psychotropic2 and other medications prescribed for him by physicians treating his mental illness. He does not have the option not to take medication if it is prescribed by a physician treating him during the period of his supervised release. If he refuses to take prescribed medication, the probation officer shall bring that refusal to the Court's attention, so that the Court may choose whether to have the defendant appear to show cause why his supervision should not be revoked, or whether a bench warrant ought to issue in lieu thereof.3

We hold that this condition was improperly imposed and therefore vacate that aspect of the district court's sentence and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

While Williams was a student at Portland Community College, according to the presentence report, one of his teachers reported to the campus police that Williams "several months earlier ... had expressed a desire to start a relationship with her. She declined his offer." What prompted the teacher's police report were two telephone calls from Williams asking her to discuss "what I talked to you about last term" and to meet him at a restaurant. A police officer advised the teacher to tell Williams, if he called again, that she wanted no further contact with him.

Nearly a year later, the teacher again alerted the campus police and reported harassing e-mails from Williams, providing copies of these messages. The record reflects that:

Between December 22, 1999 and February 9, 2000, defendant sent approximately 15 e-mails to [the teacher].... In general the e-mails were rambling and accusatory toward [her]. The first e-mail... stated, in part, "for the record i never wanted a date with you. 10 to 1 i can find out where you live."

Other e-mails contained the following language:

"are you able to walk down the street alone without looking over you (sic) shoulder every time your (sic) hear the faintest noise?"

"if i have to kill you i am also willing to do that"4

"so i may be seeing you shortly, id (sic) say it would be time to start paying up before a crazed hooligan finds you on the way to your car or maybe even in the comfort of your own home."

"you must think that ending your life is something that ill (sic) think twice about"

"your (sic) still gonna pay up whether or not if i have to beat it out of you"

Because of these e-mails, Williams was charged with two state misdemeanor counts of stalking and harassment. Once he was transferred to the federal system, the district court found that Williams "suffers from some unnamed mental disease or defect, and that that is presently interfering with [his] ability to properly aid in [his] own defense."5 Pursuant to § 4241(d),6 Williams was sent to the Federal Medical Center (FMC) in Rochester, Minnesota. There, it was decided after an administrative hearing on October 11, 2001 that Williams was a danger to himself or others, gravely disabled, and should be involuntarily treated with psychotropic drugs in order to render him competent to stand trial. Although Williams appealed the decision, he complied with it and took the medication.

On November 13, 2001, after a telephonic hearing, the district court extended Williams' commitment and found that: "Defendant's constitutional right to decline drug treatment is outweighed by the government's interest in medicating him for the purpose of rendering him competent to stand trial."7 The court noted that "the government has agreed to vacate the administrative finding in this matter that Defendant is a danger to himself or to others and does not seek to justify the Involuntary Medication Report on that basis," adding that "in any event, this finding was obviously tainted by inadequate process before the hearings officer."

During the telephonic hearing, Dr. Christine Scronce, Director of Forensics at the FMC, testified as follows concerning Williams' dangerousness:

Williams' Counsel: Now there's no concern among either you or the other doctors about Mr. Williams being able to follow the rules at ... the hospital?

Dr. Scronce: Oh, no. Not at all.

Q: He is on an open ward and holds a job, and nobody's concerned that he's dangerous in that context?

A: That's correct.

The district court's November 2001 order added that "[d]efendant has experienced some lethargy, blurred vision, and dry mouth. He fears tremors, facial paralysis, and other side effects may follow, and he is concerned all of the side effects may be long term." Based on Williams' treating psychiatrist's testimony, the court concluded that the medication would cause Williams "only minimal, temporary side effects. The Court finds the medication, therefore, is `medically appropriate.'"

In February 2002, Dr. Scronce issued a Forensic Evaluation/Discharge Summary. Dr. Scronce noted that her examination of Williams had focused on "what impact these present symptoms may have on the abilities that would be necessary for Mr. Williams to understand and participate in the proceedings." She stated that, while Williams continued to "suffer from a mental disease or defect, it does not presently render him unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, or to assist properly in his defense." Williams was returned to federal custody in Oregon at the end of February 2002. With the termination of Williams' commitment at the FMC, the district court's involuntary medication order also expired. At sentencing in June 2002, Williams stated that he had continued voluntarily to take his medication.

Williams' presentence report discussed his criminal history. After reaching the age of majority, Williams was convicted in February 1999 of misdemeanors (harassment, disorderly conduct, attempted assault, and assault) arising out of an alcohol-fueled incident at Portland State University. Williams' March 1999 telephone contact with his teacher violated a condition of his ensuing probation, that Williams not contact any employee of an Oregon institution of higher education. In April 1999, Williams tested positive for marijuana and failed to complete a psychological evaluation, both violations of probation. A substance abuse evaluation indicated that Williams was cocaine and methamphetamine dependent. Subsequent probation violations included using marijuana, failing to participate in drug treatment, and absconding from supervision.

Sometime in January 2000, at approximately the same time he sent the threatening e-mails to his teacher, Williams was hospitalized for three days at St. Luke's in San Francisco. He refused treatment. This hospitalization followed what Williams calls a dispute but what the presentence report records as an arrest for "Vandalism, Throwing Projectiles at a Vehicle, and Threatening with a Weapon." There were criminal charges deriving from this incident, later dismissed.

In the present case, after reaching a plea agreement, the parties made submissions to the court regarding sentencing. An addendum to the presentence report noted an unresolved objection to the probation officer's recommendation that Williams be required to take medication. In rejecting defense counsel's position favoring voluntary compliance, the probation officer wrote: "It is notable that after defendant began taking medications at FMC Rochester, his condition began to improve. Defendant was not on medication when he committed his crimes. If, as defense counsel states, defendant had no objections to undergoing mental health treatment, then he should have no objections to submitting to all aspects of treatment, including taking medication."

Before sentencing, the parties and the probation office agreed not to seek an upward departure based on conduct evidencing an intent to carry out Williams' e-mail threat. At the sentencing hearing, the government did not contend that Williams is dangerous. No medical evidence was introduced indicating that he is currently dangerous if unmedicated or linking his crimes to his failure to take psychotropic medication.

In calculating Williams' sentence, the district judge applied an enhancement to reflect Williams' uttering of more than two threats, offset by a reduction for his acceptance of responsibility. On the issue of medication, the judge began by rejecting a downward departure for diminished capacity:

[T]he question is whether the facts and circumstances of the defendant's offense indicate a need to protect the public because the offense involved a serious threat of violence. The content of Mr. Williams' messages threatened violence. Was that a serious threat? In a person who has a delusional mental illness that is untreated, I think it is a serious threat in the sense that the defendant is not able to control his conduct while delusional. So it is, in my view of thinking, really interconnected to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
87 cases
  • State v. Green
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 13 d5 Maio d5 2022
    ...it would postconviction." In either situation, when the defendant is forcibly medicated, the damage is done. See United States v. Williams, 356 F.3d 1045, 1055 (9th Cir. 2004) (referring to an "order compelling a person to take antipsychotic medication" as "an especially grave infringement ......
  • Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 23 d3 Dezembro d3 2009
    ...an intervening decision of the Supreme Court overturns or undermines our earlier decision.")). 17. See also, United States v. Williams, 356 F.3d 1045, 1053 (9th Cir.2004) ("Both convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees `possess[] a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted adm......
  • U.S. v. Gementera
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 9 d1 Agosto d1 2004
    ...criminal conduct, protect the public, and rehabilitate the offender. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1)-(2); 3583(d)(2); United States v. Williams, 356 F.3d 1045, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). Clearly, the shaming punishment 1 at issue in this case was intended to humiliate Gementera. And that is all it wi......
  • Bean v. Matteucci
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 20 d3 Janeiro d3 2021
    ...drugs " ‘tinker[ ] with the mental processes,’ affecting cognition, concentration, behavior, and demeanor." United States v. Williams , 356 F.3d 1045, 1054 (9th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting Mackey v. Procunier , 477 F.2d 877, 878 (9th Cir. 1973) ). "While ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Punishment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • 30 d3 Março d3 2022
    ...an opportunity to make a showing of need under H&S §11362.795, which indicates an abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams (2004) 356 F.3d 1045, held a requirement of anti-psychotic medication use to be improper, whereas In Re Louis F (2009) 177 Cal. App.4th 176, held a probation cond......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • 30 d3 Março d3 2022
    ...U.S. v. Wheeler , 435 U.S. 313, 323 (1978), §3:44.4 U.S. v. Wiley (S.D. Ohio 1999) 89 F. Supp.2d 909, §1:66 U.S. v. Williams (2004) 356 F.3d 1045, §10:26.15 U.S. v. Wilmer (9th Cir. 1986) 799 F.2d 495, §1:60.2 U.S. v. Wurie (2014) 573 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2473, §7:60 U.S. v. Ziegler, 831 F.S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT