# Covello

> District Court, E.D. California · November 7, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11223134

## Case

- **Full name:** Brian Winfield Arnold v. Patrick Covello, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** November 7, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11223134

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 BRIAN WINFIELD ARNOLD, No. 2:22-cv-2210 DC CKD P
12 Petitioner,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 PATRICK COVELLO, et al.
15 Respondents.
16
17 Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding with counsel with a petition for a writ of
18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is serving a sentence of 73-years-to-life imprisonment
19 following a jury trial in the Superior Court of Sacramento County resulting in numerous
20 convictions arising from the repeated molestation of petitioner’s grandnephew. CT 756-59.
21 Petitioner claims the trial court violated his right to due process by not ordering an evaluation of
22 his competency to stand trial. For the reasons which follow, the court recommends that the
23 petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied.
24 I. Background
25 The California Court of Appeal provided the following background concerning the claim
26 presented here:
27 In January 2018, defendant was charged by felony complaint. In
March 2019, the matter was assigned to a courtroom for jury trial.
28 On that same day, defense counsel advised the trial court that
1 defendant had been diagnosed with cancer and would likely need
“emergency surgery.” Thereafter, at the request of the defense, the
2 trial was continued multiple times due to defendant’s medical
condition. Finally, on September 18 and 24, 2019, the trial court
3 denied the defense’s requests to continue trial. The court scheduled
jury selection to begin on September 30, and indicated that, due to
4 defendant’s medical condition, trial proceedings would end at noon
each day.
5
On September 30, defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s
6 competence to stand trial and requested the court order a competency
evaluation pursuant to [Cal. Penal Code ] section 1368, asserting that
7 defendant was suffering from “post-chemo cognitive impairment,”
that made it “almost impossible for [counsel] to work with him.” In
8 support of his request, defense counsel explained that defendant was
having difficulty focusing, understanding, and remembering things,
9 and indicated that counsel had consulted with a psychologist (and
cancer survivor), who told him that chemotherapy causes haziness,
10 memory loss, and impairment. Defense counsel represented that he
had also reviewed a “plethora” of medical articles on the effect of
11 chemotherapy on cognitive functioning. He requested a competency
evaluation based on what he characterized as a good-faith declaration
12 of doubt regarding defendant’s competence to stand trial.
13 When the trial court asked defense counsel if he had filed anything
in support of his request, counsel pointed to a declaration that had
14 been executed by co-counsel a week earlier but filed that day, which
asserted that defendant was unable to assist in his defense at trial due
15 to his medical condition. After reviewing the declaration, the trial
court stated that it did not contain anything suggesting defendant was
16 incompetent, noting that the only thing that remotely touched on
competency was defendant’s difficulty concentrating on questions
17 posed in preparation of his defense and frequent requests that
questions from counsel be repeated. The court noted that, aside from
18 this declaration and its own observations of defendant over many
months, there was nothing else for it to consider in ruling on the
19 defense’s request, including any evidence supporting the
observations of defense counsel. The court stated that defendant
20 seemed “completely sound” from a “mental point of view,” noting
that there was nothing before the court showing “any mental
21 competency issues at all.” When asked, defense counsel indicated
that the psychologist he consulted with had not engaged in a clinical
22 diagnosis of defendant or interviewed defendant for purposes of his
competence to stand trial. Defense counsel stated that the
23 psychologist had interviewed defendant but he could not recall when
the interview occurred, although he noted it was not “in the last few
24 days.”
25 After the trial court asked defendant a series of questions related to
the nature of the proceedings, his willingness to assist in his defense,
26 and his medical condition, and heard argument from counsel (which
included the prosecutor pointing out that defendant’s chemotherapy
27 treatments had ended several months earlier), the court denied the
defense’s request to declare a doubt as to defendant’s competence to
28
1 stand trial and order a competency evaluation.1 In doing so, the trial
court relied on the lack of evidence supporting such relief and its own
2 observations of defendant. The court noted that defendant had
completed his medical treatments four months earlier, and found that
3 defense counsel’s declaration of doubt as to defendant’s competence
was not well-founded and questioned whether it was made in good
4 faith, also noting that the continuance was requested prior to the
request for the competency evaluation. It found no evidence before
5 it about “chemo brain,” including how chemotherapy affects a
person’s memory four months after treatment, and that it did not see
6 any evidence of that “particular concern.” The court stated that
defendant “clearly understands what we are doing here in court” and
7 was able to express himself in a logical, cogent, and linear manner.2
8 ECF No. 8-10 at 4-6.3
9 II. Standard for Habeas Relief
10 An application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody under a judgment of a
11 state court can be granted only for violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28
12 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A federal writ of habeas corpus is not available for alleged error in the
13 interpretation or application of state law. See Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010); Estelle v.
14 McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Park v. California, 202 F.2d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 2000).
15 Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) sets forth the following limitation on the granting of federal
16 habeas corpus relief:
17 An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted
18 with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State
court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim –
19

20 /////
21
1 As part of his argument, defense counsel noted that he had filed numerous declarations over the
22
past several weeks that indicated defendant was unable to effectively assist counsel. In ruling on
23 the competency issue, the trial court stated that it had reviewed all the declarations that had been
filed by the defense but could not “recall a particular emphasis on [defendant’s mental]
24 competency” in any of those declarations, although the court noted that counsel had expressed a
concern about defendant’s forgetfulness in connection with the most recent motions to continue
25
trial.

26
2 In his opening brief, defendant concedes that his answers to the trial court’s questions “showed
27 he understood the process fairly well.”

28 3 For a summary of the evidence presented at trial, see id. at 2-4.
1 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as
2 determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;
3 or
4 (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
5 State court proceeding.

6 The “contrary to” and “unreasonable application” clauses of § 2254(d)(1) are different, as

7 the Supreme Court has explained:
8 A federal habeas court may issue the writ under the “contrary to”
clause if the state court applies a rule different from the governing
9 law set forth in our cases, or if it decides a case differently than we
have done on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. The court
10 may grant relief under the “unreasonable application” clause if the
state court correctly identifies the governing legal principle from our
11 decisions but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular
case. The focus of the latter inquiry is on whether the state court’s
12 application of clearly established federal law is objectively
unreasonable, and we stressed in Williams [v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362
13 (2000)] that an unreasonable application is different from an
incorrect one.
14

15 Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002).
16 “A state court’s determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so
17 long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the correctness of the state court’s decision.”
18 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652,
19 664 (2004)). Accordingly, “[a]s a condition for obtaining habeas corpus from a federal court, a
20 state prisoner must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court
21 was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in
22 existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Richter, 562 U.S. at 103.
23 The petitioner bears “the burden to demonstrate that ‘there was no reasonable basis for the
24 state court to deny relief.’” Walker v. Martel, 709 F.3d 925, 939 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Richter,
25 562 U.S. at 98).
26 The court looks to the last reasoned state court decision as the basis for the state court
27 judgment. Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, the last reasoned decision
28 was issued by the California Court of Appeal. ECF No. 8-10.
1 III. Analysis
2 A. Decision of the Court of Appeal
3 The Court of Appeal identified relevant federal and state law pertaining to petitioner’s
4 claim as follows:
5 “ ‘Both the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and state law prohibit the state from trying
6 or convicting a criminal defendant while he or she is mentally
incompetent.’ [Citations.] ‘A defendant is incompetent to stand trial
7 if [he] is unable to consult with [his] attorney with a reasonable
degree of rational understanding or lacks a rational and factual
8 understanding of the proceedings against [him].’ ” (People v.
Woodruff (2014) 5 Cal.5th 697, 720-721.) The threshold for
9 competence is low. “Requiring that a criminal defendant be
competent has a modest aim: It seeks to ensure that he has the
10 capacity to understand the proceedings and to assist counsel.”
(Godinez v. Moran (1993) 509 U.S. 389, 402.) “Competence to stand
11 trial requires ‘the mental acuity to see, hear and digest the evidence,
and the ability to communicate with counsel in helping prepare an
12 effective defense.’ ” (People v. Johnson (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 267,
276.)
13
“[Cal. Penal Code S]ection 1368 requires that criminal proceedings
14 be suspended and competency proceedings be commenced if ‘a
doubt arises in the mind of the judge’ regarding the defendant’s
15 competence (id., subd. (a)) and defense counsel concurs (id., subd.
(b)).” (People v. Rodas (2018) 6 Cal.5th 219, 231; see also People v.
16 Wycoff (2021) __ Cal.5th __ [2021 Cal. LEXIS 5998, at p. *46]
(Wycoff).) Our Supreme Court has determined that a competency
17 hearing is also required if defense counsel informs the trial court that
he or she has a doubt as to the defendant’s competency and produces
18 substantial evidence that the defendant is not competent: “[O]nce the
accused has come forward with substantial evidence of
19 incompetence to stand trial, due process requires that a full
competence hearing be held as a matter of right.” (People v. Welch
20 (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 738.) A competency hearing is required under
such circumstances “no matter how persuasive other evidence --
21 testimony of prosecution witnesses or the court’s own observations
of the accused -- may be to the contrary.’ ” (Wycoff, supra, ___
22 Cal.5th __ [2021 Cal. LEXIS 5998, at p. *50.) “ ‘When faced with
conflicting evidence regarding competence, the trial court’s role
23 under . . . section 1368 is only to decide whether the evidence of
incompetence is substantial, not to resolve the conflict. Resolution
24 must await expert examination and the opportunity for a full
evidentiary hearing.’ [Citation.] In other words, once a trial court has
25 before it substantial evidence that a defendant is not mentally
competent, its own observations of the defendant’s competence
26 cannot take the place of the formal competence inquiry under
sections 1368 and 1369.” (Wycoff, at p. *48.)
27
“When a doubt exists as to the defendant’s mental competence, the
28 court must appoint an expert or experts to examine the defendant.
1 The issue is then tried to the court or a jury under the procedures set
out in . . . section 1369. Except as provided in . . .section 1368.1
2 (allowing for probable cause and motion hearings in certain
circumstances), all criminal proceedings are to be suspended until the
3 competence question has been determined.” (People v. Rodas, supra,
6 Cal.5th at p. 231.)
4
“ ‘The decision whether to order a competency hearing rests within
5 the trial court’s discretion, and may be disturbed upon appeal “only
where a doubt as to [mental competence] may be said to appear as a
6 matter of law or where there is an abuse of discretion.” . . . On review,
our inquiry is focused not on the subjective opinion of the trial judge,
7 but rather on whether there was substantial evidence raising a
reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s competence to stand
8 trial. [Citation.] . . . A trial court reversibly errs if it fails to hold a
competency hearing when one is required under the substantial
9 evidence test.’ ” (People v. Woodruff, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 721; see
People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 847 (Rogers) [“A trial
10 court’s decision whether or not to hold a competence hearing is
entitled to deference, because the court has the opportunity to
11 observe the defendant during trial”].)
12 Substantial evidence of incompetence is evidence “that raises a
reasonable or bona fide doubt concerning the defendant’s
13 competence to stand trial.” (Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 847.)
Such evidence “may emanate from several sources, including the
14 defendant’s demeanor, irrational behavior, and prior mental
evaluations.” (Ibid.) “The word ‘substantial’ does not mean that for
15 a doubt to arise, there must be a large quantity of evidence of a
defendant’s incompetence; rather, it means that there must be some
16 evidence of sufficient substance that it cannot be dismissed as being
inherently unpersuasive.” (Wycoff, supra, __ Cal.5th __ [2021 Cal.
17 LEXIS 5998, at p. *48].)
18 While a defense counsel’s declaration of doubt as to the defendant’s
competence supports holding a competency hearing, it is not
19 sufficient to require one. “ ‘Counsel’s assertion of a belief in a
client’s incompetence is entitled to some weight. But unless the court
20 itself has declared a doubt as to the defendant’s competence, and has
asked for counsel’s opinion on the subject, counsel’s assertions that
21 his or her client is or may be incompetent does not, in the absence of
substantial evidence to that effect, require the court to hold a
22 competency hearing.’ ” (People v. Sattiewhite (2014) 59 Cal.4th 446,
465.) The doubt which triggers the obligation to order a competency
23 hearing is determined objectively from the record. (People v.
Johnson, supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at p. 276.) The question is whether
24 a reasonable jurist, with the benefit of the available information,
would have developed a doubt as to defendant’s mental competence.
25 (Ibid.)
26 ECF No. 8-10 at 7-9.
27 /////
28 /////
1 The Court of Appeal analyzed petitioner’s claim as follows:
2 The record simply does not disclose substantial evidence raising a
reasonable doubt as to defendant’s competence to stand trial. As we
3 have discussed, it is not disputed that defendant answered the trial
court’s questions regarding competence in a manner that did not
4 evidence incompetence. The primary evidence relied on by
defendant in the trial court was a declaration submitted by one of his
5 attorneys. The half-page conclusory declaration stated as follows: (1)
defendant was under medical distress and acute physical discomfort
6 in recent meetings; (2) defendant had difficulty concentrating on
questions posed to him in preparation of his defense and frequently
7 asked for the questions to be repeated; (3) defendant went to the
bathroom three times over the course of 20 minutes, was “fine” for
8 the next 45 minutes, and then went to the bathroom twice in the
following 15 minutes; (4) during a three-hour meeting with
9 defendant, “the conversation constantly digressed to his current
medical symptoms and/or his bleak medical prognosis”; and (5) in
10 counsel’s opinion, defendant cannot assist in his own defense due to
his medical condition. In his reply brief on appeal, defendant points
11 to a declaration executed by lead trial counsel that was filed in
support of his motion to continue trial but was signed approximately
12 one week before counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s
competence. As relevant here, the declaration (which defense
13 counsel vaguely referenced at the hearing on the competency issue)
stated that, according to defendant’s treating physician, the new
14 medication prescribed to defendant would affect his cognitive
functioning for at least 30 days, including compromising his ability
15 to focus. The declaration further stated that, research conducted by
counsel, showed that the new medications would impact defendant’s
16 mood, stability, and clarity, and that counsel had personally
witnessed defendant be forgetful and non-linear in his thinking and
17 memory.
18 After review of the record, we cannot conclude the trial court erred.
The evidence in the record does not raise “a reasonable or bona fide
19 doubt concerning the defendant’s competence to stand trial.”
(Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 847.) The defense’s assertion that
20 defendant was incapable of assisting counsel in his defense due to
memory impairment and other side effects from his cancer treatment
21 was not supported by any mental health testimony or other evidence
directly from a treating physician or mental health expert (e.g.,
22 mental evaluation, medical report) who had recently examined
defendant and offered an opinion as to his mental condition,
23 including an opinion as to how the newly prescribed medication was
affecting his cognitive functioning. (See People v. Sattiewhite, supra,
24 59 Cal.4th at p. 465 [“ ‘[I]f a qualified mental health expert who has
examined the defendant “ ‘states under oath with particularity that in
25 his professional opinion the accused is, because of mental illness,
incapable of understanding the purpose or nature of the criminal
26 proceedings being taken against him or is incapable of assisting in
his defense or cooperating with counsel,’ ” that is substantial
27 evidence of incompetence.’ ”]; Wycoff, supra, __ Cal.5th __ [2021
Cal. LEXIS 5998, at pp. *55-56][professional opinion of mental
28 health expert in formal report addressed to the trial judge may
1 constitute substantial evidence of incompetence].) Nor was it
evidenced by any interactions with the court. A doubt as to
2 defendant’s mental competence does not appear as a matter of law
and no abuse of discretion appears.
3

4 ECF No. 8-10 at 9-12.
5 B. Procedural Default
6 While the Court of Appeal did reach the merits of the claim presented here, the court also
7 found that the claim was forfeited because appellate counsel “failed to support his argument with
8 any citation to the appellate record” which, according to the Court of Appeal, is required under
9 California law. ECF No. 8-10 at 9. For this reason, respondent asserts the claim presented here is
10 procedurally defaulted.
11 “In all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court
12 pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review of the
13 claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as
14 a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims
15 will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729
16 (1991). In order to demonstrate that a state procedural rule is “adequate” to provide a basis for
17 procedural default, it must be shown that the rule is, among other things, “consistently applied.”
18 Calderon v. United States Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Cal., 96 F.3d 1126, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996).
19 Respondent does not attempt to show the rule identified above is consistently applied.
20 Accordingly, respondent has not established that petitioner’s claim is procedurally defaulted.
21 C. Relief Precluded under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)
22 “A defendant may not be put to trial unless he has sufficient present ability to consult with
23 his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as factual
24 understanding of the proceedings against him.” Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57, 66 (2013)
25 (internal quotations omitted). “The failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a [criminal]
26 defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of . . .
27 due process. . .” Id. at 65 (internal quotations omitted). While the Supreme Court has never
28 elicited precise procedures a court must utilize with respect to ensuring a defendant is competent
1 to stand trial, the Court has indicated that if the record reflects “sufficient doubt” of competence,
2 “further inquiry” must be made. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180 (1975).
3 Petitioner fails to point to anything suggesting California’s procedures for determination
4 of competency run afoul of clearly established federal law a determined by the Supreme Court.
5 Petitioner does appear to assert that Court of Appeal misapplied Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375,
6 385-86 (1966). In that case the Supreme Court found that evidence concerning petitioner’s
7 mental state known to the trial court before trial required that the trial court hold a competency
8 hearing:
9 The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the evidence here was not
sufficient to require a hearing in light of the mental alertness and
10 understanding displayed in Robinson's ‘colloquies' with the trial
judge. 22 Ill.2d, at 168, 174 N.E.2d, at 823. But this reasoning offers
11 no justification for ignoring the uncontradicted testimony of
Robinson's history of pronounced irrational behavior. While
12 Robinson's demeanor at trial might be relevant to the ultimate
decision as to his sanity, it cannot be relied upon to dispense with a
13 hearing on that very issue. Cf. Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961,
76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835 (1956), reversing, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 117,
14 120, 223 F.2d 582, 585 (1955). Likewise, the stipulation of Dr.
Haines' testimony was some evidence of Robinson's ability to assist
15 in his defense. But, as the state prosecutor seemingly admitted, on
the facts presented to the trial court it could not properly have been
16 deemed dispositive on the issue of Robinson's competence.
17 Here, on the day trial was finally scheduled to begin after numerous continuances, trial
18 counsel for the first time suggested that petitioner might be incompetent, asserting that
19 chemotherapy administered four months prior to trial may have caused petitioner “post chemo
20 cognitive impairment.” ECF 8-4 at 240. The trial court was able to, in reasonable measure,
21 inquire regarding the limits on petitioner’s abilities and found that further inquiry as to
22 petitioner’s competence to stand trial was not required. Petitioner had no history of “pronounced
23 irrational behavior,” nor did petitioner have had a “long history of disturbed behavior.” Pate, 383
24 U.S. at 378. In sum, this case is readily distinguishable from Pate.
25 Because the California Court of Appeal’s did not misapply Pate, and because petitioner
26 makes no further attempt to show habeas relief is not barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), petitioner’s
27 petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied.
28 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of
1 | habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be denied.
2 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
3 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days
4 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
5 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
6 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner
7 || may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of
8 | the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district
9 || court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
10 | applicant). A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant
11 || has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional nght.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).
12 || Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the
13 || objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
14 || waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir.
15 1991).
16 || Dated: November 6, 2025 fi 20 } Kt | / , a he

18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21 4
amo2210.157

23
24
25
26
27
28
10

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11223134. Public record. Not legal advice.