Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Raymond

United States District Court, N.D. New York

March 24, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SEBASTIEN RAYMOND, Defendant.

EDWARD GROGAN, ESQ., Assistant U.S. Attorney, BROOKS G. MCARTHUR, ESQ., for Defendant Sebastien Raymond.

REPORT-RECOMMENDATION

GARY L. FAVRO, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to Northern District of New York Local Criminal Rule 58.1(a)(2)(K) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), this court recommends, for the following reasons, that Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, U.S. District Judge, find that the defendant is currently not competent to stand trial and order that the defendant be hospitalized for treatment in a suitable facility to determine whether there is substantial probability that he will regain competency in the foreseeable future, under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).

I. Background

On December 3, 2014, a Criminal Complaint was filed against Sebastien Raymond charging him with illegal reentry at the Champlain, New York Port of Entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). An initial Appearance was held on December 4, 2014 utilizing a French Interpreter. The defendant was advised of his rights, the maximum penalty for the offense charged and was given a copy of the Criminal Complaint. The defendant provided a Financial Affidavit and was found to be eligible for a court appointed attorney. Brooks G. McArthur, Esq. was appointed to represent the defendant. A detention hearing was scheduled for December 11, 2014 in Plattsburgh. Defendant was also advised of his right to a preliminary hearing. Defendant was remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal pending the detention hearing.

A detention hearing was held on December 11, 2014. Defendant appeared with Brooks G. McArthur, Esq. and was assisted by a French Interpreter. Both attorneys and the court were provided with a copy of the Pretrial Services Report. Defendant's attorney had difficulty understanding the defendant's position and requested an opportunity to allow the defendant to address the court directly. The defendant made several comments which were inconsistent and raised a concern regarding the defendant's mental competency to continue and to understand the proceedings. The court questioned defense counsel with regard to whether he had concerns regarding the defendant's competency to continue and understand these proceedings at which time Mr. McArthur admitted that he did have concerns that the defendant did not understand the charge brought against him.

As a result of the court's observation of the defendant in court, supported by the observations and opinion of the defendant's attorney, the court indicated an order would be issued for an examination of the defendant to determine whether he was competent to stand trial. The court entered an order on December 11, 2014 directing a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(b), and a report of that determination to be filed with the court and served upon counsel for both parties in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b) and (c).

Defendant was ordered committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a reasonable period, not to exceed 30 days, for such evaluation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241 and 4247 to be conducted in a suitable facility as designated by the Bureau of Prisons.

On December 18, 2014, defendant was indicted and charged with one count of illegal entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

The defendant was transferred to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, New York on January 5, 2015. On January 30, 2015, a request was made by the Bureau of Prisons for an additional 15 days as permitted by statute to complete the evaluation. The request was granted.

On or about February 21, 2015, the Competency to Stand Trial Evaluation was received from the Metropolitan Correction Center, New York, New York with copies provided to the Assistant U.S. Attorney and the defendant's attorney.

On March 12, 2015, the court conducted a conference call with the Assistant U.S. Attorney and the defendant's attorney to discuss the scheduling of a formal competency hearing. The defendant's attorney indicated a desire to waive the hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(c) and 4247 (d), and requested that the court recommend to the Honorable Glenn T. Suddaby, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of New York, that based upon the competency report, the district court should find by a preponderance of the evidence the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and he is unable to assist properly in his defense. Assistant U.S. Attorney, Edward P. Grogan, indicated that he had received and reviewed the competency report and he did not object to the report. Mr. Grogan also made note of the defendant's significant criminal history and his refusal to cooperate with the evaluation and psychological tests that were unable to be administered.

The court requested that both attorneys submit their position and request in writing to the court. Both attorneys submitted letters to the court memorializing their position and request to the court. The court indicated that based upon the court's prior observations of the defendant and the content of the competency report, it was the intention of the court to recommend to the Honorable Glenn T. Suddaby, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of New York that the District Court find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is mentally incompetent to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.