USA v. Colvin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Criminal Action No. 24-00098-KD-N
)
RICHARD COLVIN, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
The competency hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d) for Defendant Richard Colvin
was held on November 8, 2024. Defendant Colvin, his defense counsel Arthur Madden, and
Assistant United States Attorney Jessica Terrill were present.
Prior to the hearing, the Court and the parties received a copy of the Forensic
Psychological Report from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (doc. 30). The Report was the only
evidence offered with respect to Colvin’s competency to proceed to trial. The Forensic
Psychologist found that “Colvin is not currently suffering from a mental disease or defect
rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and
consequences of the proceedings against him or properly assist in his defense. He presented with
a reasonable degree of factual and rational understanding of the legal proceedings and has a
sufficient ability to consult with counsel should he choose.” (doc. 30, p. 18).
“The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that a defendant be mentally
competent to be tried or convicted.” United States v. Harris, 741 Fed. Appx. 663, 667 (11th Cir.
2018) (citing United States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244, 1252 (11th Cir. 2014)). 	Colvin shall
be considered mentally competent to stand trial if found to have “sufficient present ability to
consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and “a rational as
well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S.
Case 1:24-cr-00098-TFM-B Doc# 42 Filed 11/08/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>

2
402, 402, 80 S. Ct. 788, 789 (1960); Adams v. Wainwright, 764 F.2d 1356, 1359-60 (11th
Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1073, 106 S. Ct. 834 (1986) (same); Harris, 741 Fed. Appx. at
667 (quoting Rodriguez, 751 F.3d at 1252) (“The standard of competence is ‘whether the
defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of
rational understanding,’ and whether the defendant has a rational and factual understanding of
the criminal proceedings.”); United States v. Evans, 332 Fed. Appx. 561, 562 (11th Cir. 2009)
(“For a defendant to be competent ..., he must have ‘sufficient present ability to consult with his
lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding ... [and] ha[ve] a rational as well as
factual understanding of the proceedings against him.’”) (quoting United States v. Rahim, 431
F.3d 753, 759 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)). See also Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 401
n.12, 113 S. Ct. 2680, 2687 (U.S. 1993) (“the question is whether [the defendant] has the ability
to understand the proceedings.”);
Upon consideration of all matters presented, including the opinion of the Forensic
Psychologist, and the parties’ respective positions as set forth at the hearing, the Court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that Colvin is not “suffering from a mental disease or defect
rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and
consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense[,]” 18 U.S.C. §
4241(d). Therefore, Colvin is competent to proceed to trial.
This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge to schedule a pretrial conference and trial.
DONE and ORDERED this the 8th day of November 2024.
s / Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cr-00098-TFM-B Doc# 42 Filed 11/08/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>