United States v. Flores-Martinez

• Citation: 677 F.3d 699
• Decision Date: 16 April 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–40376.,11–40376.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Antonio FLORES–MARTINEZ, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

677 F.3d 699

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee
v.
Antonio FLORES–MARTINEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 11–40376.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 16, 2012.

Julia Bowen Stern, Renata Ann Gowie, James Lee Turner (argued), Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Fed. Pub. Def., Timothy William Crooks (argued), H. Michael Sokolow, Asst. Fed. Pub. Defenders, Fed. Pub. Defender's Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before REAVLEY, ELROD and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

HAYNES, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Antonio Flores–Martinez (“Flores–Martinez”) was convicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1) for being found unlawfully present in the United States after previous deportation subsequent to a felony conviction. On appeal, he challenges his conviction on the grounds that: (1) the district court violated his due process right to a fair trial when it denied him a psychological/psychiatric evaluation for competency purposes and failed thereafter to sua sponte conduct a hearing on the question of his competency to stand trial; and (2) the district court denied him his constitutional right to testify in his defense. For the reasons discussed below, we AFFIRM.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 2008, Flores–Martinez, a citizen and national of Honduras, was deported from the United States after being convicted of the felony of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. In 2009, Flores–Martinez was apprehended by immigration agents in Laredo, Texas and charged with illegal reentry after deportation. While in custody, he made a claim to possible derivative citizenship through his deceased father. Immigration officials investigated his claim but ultimately determined that it was without merit.¹ Subsequently, because delays in the prosecution of his case had led to Flores–Martinez having “already spent more time in federal custody than he would have received had he been convicted,” his case was dismissed and he was again deported to Honduras.

Less than three months later, Border Patrol Agents found Flores–Martinez crossing the Rio Grande River. As a result, Flores–Martinez was charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1) with being found unlawfully present in the United States after deportation subsequent to a felony conviction.

Over the course of proceedings, Flores–Martinez was disruptive in certain ways and “difficult” with his counsel. During most of this time, his counsel and the court agreed that Flores–Martinez's conduct was the result of his fervent, though legally incorrect, belief that he was entitled to citizenship due to his father's service in the United States military during World War II.

At a pretrial conference in the district court, defense counsel for Flores–Martinez orally moved for and was granted an unopposed continuance because Flores–Martinez was continuing to be “extremely difficult” and uncooperative with his counsel. Defense counsel stated that during the continuance, he intended to procure at his own expense an independent mental health evaluation of Flores–Martinez because

I feel it's important, Your Honor, before I turn around and end up in a situation where I have no other choice but to proceed with trial knowing full well that he's going to end up with a lot, lot, lot more time than he should otherwise get if he was to decide to plead guilty.

Thereafter, Dr. David Morón (“Dr. Morón”), a psychiatrist, met with Flores–Martinez for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes before Flores–Martinez walked out of the evaluation “angry, aggressive, [and] refusing to speak or answer any additional questions.”

At the next pretrial conference, defense counsel represented that Flores–Martinez “refuse[d] to cooperate with anything in this particular case. He believes that it's a case that should be dismissed, period, 100 percent, with nothing more, and on that basis, Your Honor, it's very difficult to talk to him or to prepare for trial or anything.” Defense counsel further stated that Dr. Morón's report had indicated that Flores–Martinez did not appear to have any mental health problems but that Dr. Morón could not be completely certain because he had not been able to properly evaluate him.

At the conference, the district court addressed Flores–Martinez and directed questions to him about his mental health history. Flores–Martinez responded in the negative to the district court's question of whether he had ever been treated for any mental illness or addiction to drugs of any kind, and whether he was under the influence of any medication that could inhibit his ability to understand the proceedings. In addition, Flores–Martinez offered that he was “a person that considers himself to be healthy in mind.” Furthermore, Flores–Martinez answered the district court's question affirmatively regarding whether he understood that he was being accused of the crime of being an alien unlawfully found in the United States.

The district court then addressed defense counsel and asked if Flores–Martinez had been able to assist in his defense, to which defense counsel responded, “very little.” Following up, the district court asked “whether he has shown any signs of mental health disorder that would make it difficult for him to assist you in his defense,” to which defense counsel responded, “[s]pecifically in regards [ sic] to that, no, Your Honor, there has been no problem .... Specifically to the issue of competency [to stand trial], I believe he is competent.”

The next day, the district court resumed the pretrial conference, at which time defense counsel for Flores–Martinez—now arguing that his client may be mentally incompetent—made an oral motion requesting that Flores–Martinez be given a court-ordered mental health evaluation “on the basis of his inability to provide any assistance to counsel.” The district court observed that it saw “something different between being unable and unwilling, and that's the main thing here.” In addition, the district court noted that it did not “see anything here that indicates that he is not competent. I think that [his] ... being emotional or overemotional is not an element of—of competency as far as I'm concerned. Unless a psychologist ... or especially a psychiatrist has opined that he's incompetent and has ... a medical basis for that diagnosis, then I'm—I'm ready to proceed[.]” Then, the district court reviewed Dr. Morón's report and noted that because Dr. Morón had already tried to evaluate Flores–Martinez only to be refused, any additional attempt would likely be equally futile. In response, defense counsel suggested that Flores–Martinez may be less recalcitrant if he were sent away for a court-ordered evaluation to be conducted at one of the out-of-state federal prison facilities. The district court denied the motion.

Five days later, the case proceeded to jury trial, at the beginning of which the district court summarized Dr. Morón's report and determined that nothing in the record indicated any reason to doubt Flores–Martinez's competency to stand trial. Then, the district court warned that if Flores–Martinez was disruptive during the trial, he would be removed from the courtroom. Immediately, Flores–Martinez stated as follows:

Your Honor [ sic] supposed to be honest with the jury—the jury and all that. You guys dropped the charges already. Tell the jury that my father fought for this country. My father's a U.S. veteran. That's why I'm complaining. You guys sent me to Honduras just to lose my arm. This is how you guys, you know, paid to [ sic] my father.

The district court again warned Flores–Martinez against disrupting the proceedings, but Flores–Martinez retorted that because the judge was “not being honest ... [w]ith the jury,” he did “not want to be here anymore.” In response, the district court ordered that “the record reflect that the defendant has requested his absence from the courtroom,” had Flores–Martinez removed, and informed the jury that “the defendant has requested that he not be in the courtroom during the trial, so we will be proceeding ... [with the defendant] ‘in absentia.’ ” Subsequently, during a recess after the direct examination of a government witness, the district court brought Flores–Martinez into the courtroom to ask if he wanted to return for the remainder of the trial. Flores–Martinez answered that he did.

When the government rested its case-in-chief, the district court recessed to permit defense counsel to confer with Flores–Martinez prior to putting on his case-in-chief. During the recess, defense counsel requested to make a record to address the issue of whether Flores–Martinez would testify in his defense. Defense counsel stated that Flores–Martinez wanted to testify but that he only wanted to testify as to matters that had been excluded by the limine order granted on the government's motion:²

I know that it's our case in chief next because the government has rested in this particular case. My concern is my client, Your Honor, he wants to testify. He wants to talk to the jury, but he wants to talk to the jury about what this Court has ordered liminied [ sic] out, and that's all he wants to talk about, about the facts he feels he's entitled to, his right to be here in the United States because of the Army service of his father, the injuries, the service—connected injuries that he has with the military and things of that nature.(emphasis added). Defense counsel then requested that the district court reverse its limine order so that the defense could present the information regarding why Flores–Martinez believed that he had a right to be in the United States and was not violating any laws. The district court denied the request to reverse its limine order, at which point the defense stated that it had nothing further to offer. However, when the district court began seating the jury in the courtroom, the following...