United States v. Lawrence ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-51048
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN FRANCIS LAWRENCE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-99-CR-12-2
--------------------
June 18, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In his direct criminal appeal, John Francis Lawrence argues
that the district court failed to determine that he was competent
to enter a guilty plea. The district court specifically questioned
Lawrence about his competency in light of his accidental head
injury, and Lawrence indicated that he was competent to discuss the
case with his counsel and to understand the nature of the
proceedings. The record reflected that Lawrence’s counsel
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-51048
-2-
monitored his medical treatment to insure that he was competent
prior to entering into plea negotiations and entering a guilty
plea. See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396 (1993). The
district court’s determination that Lawrence had the mental
capacity and opportunity to consult with his counsel and understood
the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea was not
clearly arbitrary or unwarranted. See United States v. Doke, 171
F.3d 240, 247 (5th Cir. 1999).
Lawrence also argues that the district court improperly
participated in the plea bargaining in his case in violation of
FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(e)(1). The plea bargaining had been concluded
prior to the rearraignment hearing. During the rearraignment, the
district court explained both the benefits and disadvantages of
Lawrence’s pleading guilty pursuant to the plea agreement. The
district court’s remarks in the context of the entire proceeding
show that it did not promise Lawrence that he would receive a
lesser sentence if he pleaded guilty. The record reflects that the
district court was not involved in the plea negotiations and did
not coerce Lawrence into entering a plea. See United States v.
Crowell, 60 F.3d 199, 203 (5th Cir. 1995).
Lawrence’s conviction is AFFIRMED.