Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-4462
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cr-00095-MJG-2)
Argued:
Decided:
after
defense
counsel
raised
concerns
regarding
Frazier
failing
failing
to
to
apply
the
independently
proper
sentencing
exercise
its
standard
sentencing
and
by
discretion
we affirm.
I.
In January of 2012 a grand jury in the District of Maryland
returned a six-count superseding indictment against Frazier and
a co-defendant (the indictment).
following
charges:
conspiracy
commit
carjacking,
in
A.
The Friday before Fraziers trial was to begin, defense
counsel
filed
detailing
proceed
his
to
Fraziers
versus
letter
concerns
trial.
ability
under
regarding
Among
to
plea;
seal
his
defense
understand
to
with
assist
the
district
clients
The
following
Monday,
the
competency
counsels
concerns
the
pros
and
in
his
defense;
court
cons
of
to
were
trial
and
to
S.J.A. 1.
court
inquired
into
that
nothing
disclosed
during
the
ex
parte
discussion
the
district
court
that,
based
on
approximately
dozen
S.J.A. 5.
noted
that
Fraziers
eyes
were
glassy
Id.
and
that
Id.
Frazier
Defense counsel
Id.
S.J.A. 5-6.
had
not
seen
at
all.
He
explained
that
he
had
been
S.J.A. 9.
he
admitted
that
he
smoke[ed]
and
that
this
was
hearing
all
such
testimony,
the
district
court
to proceed to trial.
request,
States
the
United
Marshals
Office
conferred
with
as
recently
as
the
week
before,
Frazier
had
written
The
district
court
explained
that
the
letters
S.J.A. 11.
B.
After discussing Fraziers competency outside the presence
of
the
government,
the
district
court
then
turned
to
jury
however, the parties notified the district court that they had
reached
plea
agreement
in
principle
and
requested
brief
proposed 144
month
sentence.
Frazier
would
plead
guilty
to
district
court
proceeded
through
lengthy
colloquy
testify,
the
presumption
of
innocence,
the
governments
so
advised,
Frazier
confirmed
that
he
still
After
wished
to
court
then
proceeded
directly
to
sentencing.
The
and
the
applicable
guideline
range
of
135
to
168
Defense counsel
J.A. 50-51.
6
agreements
district
offered
court
to
concluded
Fraziers
that,
having
co-defendants.
already
tried
The
one
of
J.A. 75.
II.
Frazier now appeals his sentence, contending that (1) the
district
court
erred
by
not
holding
competency
hearing
to
hold
that
the
district
court
did
not
abuse
its
Title 18,
extent
consequences
that
of
he
the
is
unable
to
proceedings
understand
against
him
the
or
18 U.S.C. 4241(a).
7
nature
to
and
assist
Even if no
Id. at 1289.
that
the
district
competency hearing.
(4th Cir. 2007).
the
trial
court
court
erred
by
not
ordering
facts
raising
bona
fide
doubt
Walton v.
Angelone, 321 F.3d 442, 459 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation
marks omitted). 2
We
review
the
district
courts
determination
that
no
judgment
for
determine
that
of
whether
the
the
district
court's
court;
rather,
exercise
of
we
must
discretion,
his
own
courts
defense.
observations
He
further
regarding
contends
Fraziers
that
the
district
competency
were
According to appellant,
the district courts interaction with him was brief and involved
little back-and-forth discussion.
Besides defense counsels own statements of what he and his
investigators had observed, nothing before the district court
suggested
that
Frazier
was
incompetent
to
assist
in
his
own
defense.
(The trial court must look at the record as a whole and accept
as true all evidence of possible incompetence in determining
whether
to
order
competency
hearing.)
(internal
quotation
marks omitted).
The
district
court
evidence
pertaining
(1)
history
of
at
prior
any
demeanor
and
to
should
the
defendant's
irrational
to
opinions on competency.
examine
of
the
competence,
behavior;
sentencing;
all
(2)
and
the
(3)
record
including:
defendant's
prior
medical
263, 291 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. General, 278
F.3d
389,
omitted).
397
(4th
Cir.
2002))
(internal
quotation
marks
Frazier had not tested positive for drug use at the detention
facility where he was being held, a fact which was bolstered by
Fraziers own statement that although he smoked, he had never
tested
positive
attributed
noticed
to
any
during
odd
stress
any
behavior
and
urinalysis.
that
anxiety,
for
defense
which
Instead,
counsel
he
was
Frazier
may
have
prescribed
medication.
The district court further noted that Frazier, in a series
of pro se letters to the court, had demonstrated that he was
clearly capable of expressing himself and was not delusional.
Frazier contends that such statements indicate that the district
court applied the wrong standard in determining his competency.
Under 4241(a), a competency hearing is required if there is
reasonable cause to believe a defendant is unable to understand
10
mental
disease
or
defect.
By
its
terms,
4241
to
understand
the
nature
and
consequences
of
the
disease
questioning
or
and
defect.
analysis
Here,
the
indicates
that
district
it
was
courts
simply
from
any
mental
properly
determining
that
affliction
Frazier
to
was
begin
not
with.
suffering
After
from
11
suggests
that
the
district
court
should
have
provides
that
the
court
may
order
psychiatric
or
Frazier
cognitive
difficulty
was
not
clear.
Again,
indeed
suffering
from
cognitive
difficulty
when,
besides
hearing
or
the
sentencing
hearing.
He
was
able
to
Further,
defense
that
he
counsel
abandoned
believed
Frazier
his
was
earlier
competent
concerns
to
and
proceed.
J.A. 50-51.
The requirement of 4241(a) that the district court grant
a
competency
expanded
to
hearing
when
require
such
reasonable
a
hearing
cause
exists
whenever
cannot
defense
be
counsel
district
court
in
its
Ultimately, it is up to
discretion
to
determine
whether
find
that
the
district
court
did
not
abuse
We
its
to
next
contends
the
plea
the
district
agreement
in
was
proffered
pursuant
Procedure 11(c)(1)(C).
to
court
determining
erred
by
Fraziers
Rule
of
Criminal
FED.R.CRIM.P. 11(c)(1)(C).
accepts
the
plea
agreement.
13
Id.
In
this
case,
the
parties
agreed
in
the
plea
agreement
that
144
months
independently
then,
considering
determining
that
sentence,
requires
the
appropriate
deciding
sentence
whether
it
and
could
district
courts
to
impose
sentence
In
determining
the
appropriate
18 U.S.C.
sentence
for
to
consider
sentence.
these
factors
in
determining
Fraziers
the wrong standard and accepted the plea because the recommended
144 month sentence was in the range of reasonableness.
J.A.
75; see United States v. Tucker, 473 F.3d 556, 561 (4th Cir.
2007) (holding that a district courts mission in sentencing is
not
to
impose
reasonable
sentence
but
rather,
one
of
appropriate
abdicat[ed]
3553(a)).
sentence,
its
By
Appellant
constitutional
14
not
first
argues,
duty
to
determining
the
district
exercise
its
the
court
own
Appellants
Br. 38.
The government contends that this court need not reach this
issue as Frazier waived his right to appeal his sentence in his
plea
agreement
dismissed.
and
that
Whether
this
portion
defendant
has
of
his
appeal
effectively
must
waived
be
his
We will
349,
355
(4th
Cir.
2012).
Fraziers
plea
agreement
in
each
case,
upon
15
the
particular
facts
and
and
intelligently
waived
his
right
to
appeal
his
right
to
appeal
his
conviction.
By
signing
the
plea
to
appeal
the
conviction.
The
district
court
also
explained that under the plea agreement Frazier would waive his
right
to
appeal
any
sentence
not
greater
than
12
years.
wished
to
move
forward
with
his
guilty
plea.
Moreover,
J.A. 55.
Appellant
contends
that
the
appeal
waiver
is
not
valid
factors
accepting
to
Fraziers
determine
the
plea
no
has
are
two
separate
appropriate
impact
on
sentence
the
valid
before
appeal
and
distinct
phases
of
criminal
and
FED.R.CRIM.P.11(d)(2).
intelligently
waived
his
right
Because Frazier
to
appeal
any
AFFIRMED
17
18
defendant
Rule
of
pleads
Criminal
guilty
Procedure
to
charged
11(c)(1)(C)
offense,
allows
the
his
Fed. R. Crim. P.
without
finding
that
the
agreed-upon
I disagree.
19
If Frazier is correct
is
waiver.
bound
by
the
terms
therein,
including
the
appellate
argument.
Because Frazier asserts it for the first time on appeal,
our review is for plain error only.
507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).
defendant must show:
Even
if
defendant
can
satisfy
these
See
requirements,
fairness,
proceedings.
integrity,
Id.
or
(internal
public
reputation
quotation
marks
of
and
judicial
alteration
omitted).
Sentencing Guidelines 6B1.2(c) governs whether a district
court should approve a plea agreement that includes a specific
sentence.
is
20
within
the
applicable
2685,
2692
(2011)
(plurality
opinion);
id.
at
2696
months,
and
Frazier
does
not
argue
otherwise
now.
In
order
needed
to
to
validly
adopt
the
explicitly
find
that
agreement,
the
the
district
agreed-upon
court
sentence
was
(2007)
(quoting
U.S.C.
3553(a)).
Essentially,
his
21
6B1.2(c).
22