# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · November 14, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9896907

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 14, 2023
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Direct Criminal
- **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/9896907

## Opinion text

Case: 23-60107 Document: 00516966955 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2023

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-60107
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 14, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Lederrius Davonte Brown,

Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:21-CR-103-1
______________________________

Before Smith, Ho, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Lederrius Brown appeals his convictions of being a felon in possession
of a firearm and aiding and abetting bank burglary. Brown contends that the
district court erred in failing to convene a competency hearing sua sponte.
A defendant “has a procedural due process right to a competency
hearing if the evidence before the district court raises a bona fide doubt as to

_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60107 Document: 00516966955 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2023

No. 23-60107

[his] competence to stand trial.” United States v. Teijeiro, 79 F.4th 387, 393
(5th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
We consider three factors in determining whether a district court reversibly
erred in failing to convene a competency hearing sua sponte: “(1) any prior
medical opinion on competency, (2) the defendant’s demeanor at trial, and
(3) any history of irrational behavior.” Id. We need not decide whether our
review is for plain error or for abuse of discretion, as Brown cannot prevail
under either standard. See id. at 392–94.
Brown’s mental status was evaluated by a prison psychologist. Based
on interviews, observations of Brown’s behavior, and clinical testing, she
determined that Brown suffered from a mild cognitive impairment related to
a fall in 2020 but that he was malingering and exaggerating his symptoms in
order to evade prosecution. Testing and observation indicated he under-
stood the charges against him, and there was no objective evidence of any
impairment to his ability to assist counsel in his defense. After the forensic
evaluation was completed, Brown entered a guilty plea and indicated he
understood the proceedings. The forensic evaluation and Brown’s demeanor
during the rearraignment hearing strongly support the district court’s deci-
sion not to convene a competency hearing sua sponte. Thus, there was no
reversible error. See id. at 393–94.
The judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9896907. Public record. Not legal advice.