USA v. Burton

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
R. DAVON BURTON,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 25-00092-01-CR-W-SRB
ORDER
On October 29, 2025, counsel for Defendant R. Davon Burton filed a motion pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 4241 for determination of Defendant’s mental competency to stand trial. Doc. 20.1
On October 31, 2025, the Court granted the motion for determination of Defendant’s mental
competency to stand trial under 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Doc. 21. The Court directed a psychological
or psychiatric examination of Defendant be conducted and the report be filed with the Court
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b). Id.
Shortly thereafter, Defendant was designated to the Federal Detention Center – Houston,
TX for psychiatric evaluation. On December 29, 2025, the Court received a forensic evaluation
from Lesli Johnson, Ph.D., who concluded:
“[b]ased on the information available, there is no objective evidence to indicate that
Mr. Burton suffers from signs or symptoms of a major mental disorder . . . that
would impair his present ability to understand the nature and consequences of the
court proceedings against him, or his ability to properly assist counsel in his
defense.”
1 Defense counsel also requested a psychiatric or psychological examination to determine the existence of insanity at
the time of the offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4242. Doc. 20. Because Defendant had not filed a notice pursuant to
Rule 12.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Government had not requested a psychiatric or
psychological examination of Defendant, the Court denied Defendant’s request for a psychiatric or psychological
examination pursuant to section 4242. Doc. 21.
Case 4:25-cr-00092-SRB Document 30 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 2

Doc. 24. 	Further, Dr. Johnson concluded “[a]t this time, Mr. Burton’s prognosis regarding his
competency to stand trial is good,” and Defendant’s symptoms “did not rise to the level that would
hinder [his] competency-related abilities.” Id.
On January 21, 2026, a hearing was held pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d) for the purpose
of determining Defendant’s mental competency to stand trial. Docs. 28, 29. Defendant, substitute
counsel Travis Poindexter on behalf of Ronna Holloman-Hughes, and Government counsel, Jess
Michaelson all appeared in person. Doc. 28. The parties stipulated that the Court could consider
Dr. Johnson’s forensic evaluation as if she had appeared in person and testified under oath. Id.
No additional evidence was offered by either party. 	Id. 	Based on the record before the Court,
including Dr. Johnson’s report (Doc. 24), it is
RECOMMENDED that the District Court find Defendant is competent to understand the
nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense.
Counsel are reminded they have fourteen days in which to file any objection to this Report
and Recommendation. 	A failure to file and serve objections by this date shall bar an attack on
appeal of the factual findings in this Report and Recommendation except on the grounds of plain
error or manifest injustice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: January 21, 2026 	/s/ W. Brian Gaddy
W. BRIAN GADDY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cr-00092-SRB Document 30 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 2