United States of America v. Melania Corcino

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4107
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MELANIA CORCINO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00260-BO-2)
Submitted: March 17, 2011 Decided: April 13, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond J. Rigat, Washington, DC, for Appellant. George E. B.
Holding, United States Attorney, Matthew L. Fesak, Anne M.
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Melania Corcino pled guilty to conspiracy to commit
sex trafficking of minors, sex trafficking through coercion, and
interstate transportation of persons with intent to engage in
prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006). On
appeal, she challenges her conviction, claiming that the
district court erred by failing to inquire sua sponte into
whether she was competent to enter the plea when post-plea
medical evidence showed that she suffered from untreated
psychological problems at the time of the plea. We affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion a defendant’s claim
that the district court should have ordered a competency
hearing. United States v. Banks, 482 F.3d 733, 742-43 (4th Cir.
2007). Under this standard, we “must determine whether the
court’s exercise of discretion, considering the law and the
facts, was arbitrary or capricious.” United States v. Mason, 52
F.3d 1286, 1289 (4th Cir. 1995).
The district court should hold a competency hearing
when it has reasonable cause to believe that a defendant may
suffer from a mental disease or defect that interferes with his
ability to understand the nature and consequences of the
proceedings against him or to assist properly in his own
defense. 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) (2006); United States v.
Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 291 (4th Cir. 2010). To determine

-- 2 of 4 --

3
whether reasonable cause exists, the district court should
consider any “evidence of irrational behavior, the defendant’s
demeanor at trial, and medical opinions concerning the
defendant’s competence.” Mason, 52 F.3d at 1290. “[T]he
presence of some degree of mental illness is not to be equated
with incompetence. . . .” Hall v. United States, 410 F.2d 653,
659 (4th Cir. 1969). Instead, the legal test for competency is
whether the defendant “has sufficient present ability to consult
with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding – and whether he has a rational as well as factual
understanding of the proceedings against him.” Dusky v. United
States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to sua
sponte conduct a retrospective competency hearing to determine
if Corcino was competent to enter the plea. The medical
evidence in the record, including that of Corcino’s own expert,
did not establish reasonable cause to believe that Corcino, at
the time of the plea, was unable to assist her attorney or
understand the consequences of the proceedings against her.
Accordingly, we affirm her conviction. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 3 of 4 --

4
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --