Godinez v. Moran
509 U.S. 389 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The competency standard for a criminal defendant to plead guilty or waive the right to counsel is the same as the competency standard for standing trial. The standard is whether the defendant has a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and a sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.
Facts:
- On August 2, 1984, Richard Allan Moran shot and killed a bartender and a patron at a saloon in Las Vegas, Nevada.
- Nine days later, Moran shot and killed his former wife at her apartment.
- Immediately after killing his ex-wife, Moran shot himself in the abdomen and unsuccessfully attempted to slit his wrists.
- Two days later, on August 13, 1984, Moran confessed to the three murders from his hospital bed.
- After initially pleading not guilty, Moran informed the court that he wished to discharge his attorneys and change his pleas to guilty.
- Moran stated he wanted to fire his lawyers and plead guilty to prevent the presentation of mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing.
- At the time he sought to waive counsel, Moran was being administered four prescription drugs: phenobarbital, dilantin, inderal, and vistaril.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Allan Moran was charged with three counts of first-degree murder in Nevada state trial court.
- After two psychiatrists found him competent to stand trial, Moran moved to discharge his counsel and plead guilty, which the trial court accepted.
- A three-judge panel sentenced Moran to death.
- The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed two death sentences, reversing the third and remanding for a life sentence.
- Moran filed a petition for post-conviction relief in state court, which was denied, and the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
- Moran then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, which the court denied.
- Moran, as appellee, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the warden, Godinez, as appellant.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that competency to waive constitutional rights requires a higher standard ('reasoned choice') than competency to stand trial.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause require a higher or different standard of competency for a defendant to plead guilty or waive the right to counsel than the standard required to stand trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No. The Due Process Clause does not require a higher standard of competency for a defendant to plead guilty or waive the right to counsel than the standard for standing trial. The standard for competence to stand trial, articulated in Dusky v. United States, is whether the defendant has a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and a sufficient ability to consult with counsel. The Court reasoned that the decisions a defendant makes during trial are no less complex than the decision to plead guilty. Furthermore, the competence required is the competence to waive the right to counsel, not the competence to represent oneself; a defendant's technical legal knowledge is irrelevant under Faretta v. California. A separate constitutional protection exists in the requirement that a trial court must ensure any waiver of rights is 'knowing and voluntary,' which is a distinct inquiry from the defendant's underlying mental competence.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes. The standard of competence to waive counsel and represent oneself should be higher than the standard to stand trial with the assistance of counsel. The Dusky standard is specifically designed to measure a defendant’s ability to assist counsel, a premise that vanishes when counsel is waived. Competency is context-specific, and the ability to aid a lawyer does not equate to the ability to conduct one's own defense. Previous cases like Westbrook v. Arizona and Massey v. Moore support tailoring the competency inquiry to the specific right being waived. The dissent argued that Moran's mental state, medication, and self-destructive desire to seek execution raised grave doubts about his ability to make a reasoned choice, which the trial court should have investigated with a more specific competency hearing.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
No. A single competency standard applies throughout all stages of a criminal proceeding. The Dusky standard's focus is on the defendant's 'rational understanding' of the proceedings, which is a requirement from arraignment through verdict, regardless of whether the defendant has counsel. The common law has historically applied a single competency standard, and creating multiple, nuanced standards would be unworkable. The crucial constitutional protection for a defendant making grave choices, like waiving counsel, is not a heightened competency standard but the separate and discrete judicial inquiry into whether the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Analysis:
This decision resolved a circuit split by establishing a single, uniform standard for competency throughout criminal proceedings, rejecting the idea of a 'heightened' standard for critical decisions like pleading guilty or waiving counsel. The Court clarified the distinction between two separate legal inquiries: 1) the defendant's mental capacity (competence), and 2) the quality of their decision-making (whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary). By refusing to conflate these two concepts, the decision simplifies the competency determination for trial courts but places a significant burden on them to conduct a thorough colloquy to ensure any waiver of fundamental rights is actually understood and freely made.
Unlock the full brief for Godinez v. Moran