Divided Court Affirms Drug Convictions, Rejecting Competency Concerns

US v. Cabrera-Rivas: Cabrera-Rivas, who “likely has a learning disability . . . doesn’t speak fluent English” and has a third-grade education, nonetheless “had a side business peddling” cocaine. He met Hector – actually a Homeland Security confidential informant – and arranged for Hector to meet a “dude from Texas” who could sell him methamphetamine. After arranging the deal and bringing all the parties together, Cabrera-Rivas was arrested and charged with conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

Prior to trial, Cabrera-Rivas’s counsel moved for a competency evaluation. At a hearing before a magistrate judge, defense counsel testified about Cabrera-Rivas’s behavior and difficulty communicating with him and a paralegal testified about Cabrera-Rivas’s “anger issues.” The judge also considered a declaration from Cabrera-Rivas’s wife about his “irrational and violent behavior throughout their four-year marriage.” In response, a Government expert who had evaluated Cabrera-Rivas testified that he understood what he was charged with, various legal concepts (when explained in a “simplified” manner), and what the end result of his case might be (conviction and deportation). The magistrate judge found that opinion credible and concluded that Cabrera-Rivas had not shown he was incompetent. Cabrera-Rivas did not object to that decision and it was never reviewed by the district court.

Cabrera-Rivas was convicted on both counts after a jury trial. Following trial, Cabrera-Rivas filed a motion for a “retrospective competency hearing” arguing that Cabrera-Rivas’s conduct at trial (he testified in his own defense) “showed he was unable to comprehend the proceedings.” The district court denied the motion, based on its personal observations of Cabrera-Rivas’s testimony and conduct during trial and the lack of objection to any competency-related issue during trial.

On appeal, a divided Fourth Circuit affirmed Cabrera-Rivas’s convictions, primarily focused on the district court’s handling of Cabrera-Rivas’s competency issues.  The court first rejected the Government’s argument that because Cabrera-Rivas had not objected to the magistrate judge’s competency decision that the court lacked jurisdiction, concluding that an untimely (or absent) filing of objections does not divest the court of appeals of jurisdiction. As to the merits of that decision, the court concluded that there was no clear error in the magistrate judge’s crediting of the expert testimony over the evidence presented by Cabrera-Rivas, noting that the burden is on a defendant to demonstrate lack of competence, not on the Government prove competence.

Next, the court turned to the issue of whether a magistrate judge could “finally decide” the issue of competency. Noting that this issue was “important, but it wasn’t preserved,” the court applied plain error review and found none, noting both the lack of objection in the district court and failure to raise the argument in Cabrera-Rivas’s opening brief. The court rejected the framing that Cabrera-Rivas could not waive issues related to competency issues, concluding that that “isn’t at all what happened here,” where Cabrera-Rivas had a competency hearing, but “forfeited instead . . . his right to challenge the magistrate judge’s powers.” The court also held that there could be no prejudice (in the plan error analysis) because even if the magistrate judge had entered proposed findings and recommendations for the district court to adopt Cabrera-Rivas would have failed to object to those, too. The court also found no clear error in the district court’s denial of his post-trial motion.

Judge Wynn dissented on the competency issue, arguing that the majority “overlooks well-established precedent from the Supreme Court and this Court to deny Cabrera-Rivas the remedy that the Constitution compels – review of his competency by an Article III judge.”