United States v. Todd Giffen ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 8 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    19-30174
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 6:18-mj-00236-MK-1
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    TODD MICHAEL GIFFEN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Mustafa T. Kasubhai, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 4, 2021**
    Portland, Oregon
    Before: BOGGS,*** PAEZ, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Todd Michael Giffen was charged with making threats via interstate
    communication and stalking in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 875
    (c) and 2261A. He
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    Page 2 of 3
    appeals from the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
    recommendation that Giffen be found incompetent to stand trial. We affirm.
    1. In addition to challenging the district court’s competency determination,
    Giffen alleges that (1) the magistrate judge erred in ordering a competency
    evaluation and delaying the preliminary hearing, and (2) that he received
    ineffective assistance of counsel at his initial appearance. We lack jurisdiction to
    consider these claims as only the competency determination is a collateral order
    subject to interlocutory review. United States v. Friedman, 
    366 F.3d 975
    , 978–79
    (9th Cir. 2004).
    2. We review the district court’s determination that Giffen was incompetent
    to stand trial for clear error. 
    Id. at 980
    . A defendant is incompetent if the court
    finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, 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). Dr. Cynthia Low, a forensic psychologist at the
    Bureau of Prisons, interviewed Giffen and conducted a review of his records. She
    diagnosed him with schizophrenia and concluded that he maintains a “bizarre
    delusionary system” in which he is the victim of government mind control and
    torture. She also testified that Giffen believes his victimization would provide a
    complete defense to the charges against him and that judges, prosecutors, and
    attorneys can engage in three-way mental communication with one another.
    Page 3 of 3
    Giffen’s own testimony at the competency hearing merely corroborated the
    forensic psychologist’s conclusions. The court acted well within its discretion in
    crediting Dr. Low’s testimony over the contrary opinion of Giffen’s one-time
    therapist, Dr. Seth Farber.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-30174

Filed Date: 3/8/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/8/2021