Contention That Court Should Have Argued Second Compentency Eval Rejected

United States v. Cornejo-Sandoval, ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 1195527 (10th Cir. 2009)
Court rejects D’s procedural and substantive competency claims regarding court’s failure to order a second competency evaluation during trial. 18 USC Sec. 4241(a) sets out the procedure when a question of competency arises. Review of a decision whether to order a second exam is not plenary–rather, it is for an abuse of discretion. Counsel’s initial agreement that D was competent a week before trial, the pre-trial evaluation noting that D was competent at that time but was merely a very difficult and angry client, and the trial court’s observation that D was trying to disrupt the proceedings, combined so that COA could not say trial court abused its discretion in not ordering a second evaluation. D’s failure to succeed on his procedural competency claim forecloses his substantive competency claim.