UNITED STATES v. MCKEE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-22No. No. 19-10326

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's finding of competency and dismissed McKee's challenge to his sentence reduction because his challenge was barred by his valid guilty plea and waiver of the right to appeal.

Dustin McKee appealed his methamphetamine conspiracy conviction and sentence, raising two main challenges. First, he argued the district court erred in finding him competent to plead guilty, pointing to concerns about his grasp of his legal situation. Second, he contended the court should have applied a larger reduction to his sentence for accepting responsibility. The appellate court upheld the competency finding based on a comprehensive four-month psychological evaluation that concluded McKee's legal misconceptions, though persistent, did not rise to the level of clinical delusions. The court also found no plain error in the district court's decision not to hold an additional competency hearing before accepting the plea or imposing sentence.

On the sentencing issue, the court determined that McKee's challenge was dependent on proving he was incompetent—a claim that failed. Because McKee validly entered his guilty plea, he bound himself to a waiver of his right to appeal his sentence, which precluded the court from reviewing his argument about the level of the responsibility reduction. The appellate court therefore affirmed the competency determination and dismissed the sentencing challenge.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the district court clearly erred in finding McKee competent despite his erroneous legal theory
Whether plain error occurred by failing to hold an additional competency hearing before plea or sentencing
Whether McKee's guilty plea waiver of the right to appeal bars review of sentencing reduction claims

Procedural posture

McKee appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to import methamphetamine in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Dustin McKee appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to import methamphetamine. McKee contends that the district court erred by finding him competent before accepting his guilty plea and by applying a reduction under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines for acceptance of responsibility of only two levels rather than three. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

1. The district court did not commit clear error when it credited the third and final psychological report in this case, in which Dr. Cochrane opined that McKee was competent to stand trial. See United States v. Gastelum-Almeida, 298 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2002). Dr. Cochranes report relied on a four-month-long evaluation of McKee at the federal medical center in Butner, North Carolina. The report addressed the main issue giving rise to concerns about McKees competency—his erroneous legal theory related to his belief that the government had previously dismissed several counts of his indictment—and concluded that even though the theory was baseless, it was not delusional in any clinical sense. Before the district court, defense counsel did not dispute the reports correctness and initially told the court that McKee was “doing a lot better” since returning from the federal facility. The record also reflects that McKee never exhibited any inappropriate “demeanor in court” when he pleaded guilty or at any other hearing. See Miles v. Stainer, 108 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir. 1997). And the earlier psychological report—which had deemed McKee incompetent—had opined that McKee “may be able to be restored [to competency] within a reasonable period of time.” Even in the face of some conflicting evidence, “it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to find that the evidence weighed in favor of a competency finding.” Lewis v. Ayers, 681 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2012).

2. To the extent that McKee argues that the district court erred by not sua sponte holding a competency hearing before accepting his guilty plea or imposing sentence, we see no plain error. See United States v. Garza, 751 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2014). To be sure, some of the more concerning exchanges showing McKee entrenched in his erroneous legal position occurred after the district court deemed him competent and accepted his guilty plea. But as already explained, the final psychological report addressed McKees legal position and found it insufficient to render him clinically delusional. Defense counsel also did not contend that McKee was incompetent at the sentencing hearing; rather, counsel argued for a sentencing variance based on McKees mental health issues. See id. at 1137 (emphasizing that the defendants lawyer had dropped the competency challenge). And the district court was in an ideal position to evaluate McKees competency before sentencing. It discussed McKees legal theory with him at the final presentencing hearing, and sentencing proceeded without issue. The district court did not plainly err.

3. McKees challenge to the validity of his plea agreement is derivative of his argument that he was not competent. Because McKee was competent to plead guilty, we conclude that he voluntarily entered into his plea agreement, in which he waived his right to appeal his sentence. See United States v. Lo, 839 F.3d 777, 783 (9th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Duncan, 643 F.3d 1242, 1248–49 (9th Cir. 2011). We therefore do not consider his argument that the district court erred in denying him a third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b).

AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.