United States v. Landers

Citations: 564 F.3d 1217; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9485; 2009 WL 1195094Docket: 08-6105

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; May 5, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Russell Dean Landers, appealing his convictions for mailing threatening communications and conspiring to impede federal officials, attempted to extort the warden of the federal prison where he was incarcerated by placing fraudulent liens on the warden's property. Landers, a former member of the Montana Freemen militia, had a history of anti-government activities and was serving a 30-year sentence for similar crimes. His escape plan involved “copyrighting” his name and invoicing the warden for its unauthorized use, intending to negotiate his release through extortion. The plan mirrored tactics used by other inmates influenced by an anti-government publication, “Cracking the Code,” which promotes a redemption theory that claims individuals can evade government authority by exploiting commercial law. Landers's scheme was thwarted when he unwittingly recruited an undercover FBI agent for assistance, leading to his convictions. In his appeal, Landers contended that the district court erred in failing to evaluate his competency to stand trial, denying him expert psychological evaluation, and imposing a sentence above the guideline range. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decisions.

Landers exhibited disruptive behavior during legal proceedings, necessitating his removal from the courtroom on several occasions. He filed unusual pro se documents and refused to cooperate with his appointed counsel. The district court, concerned about his mental competency, scheduled a hearing to evaluate whether to initiate formal competency proceedings. Ultimately, it decided against this after both the prosecutor and defense counsel agreed that his behavior was due to a "general attitude of protest" rather than mental incompetency. The court considered evidence of Landers’s organized thinking, dismissing the need for competency proceedings.

Just before trial, Landers's counsel requested court authorization to employ an expert witness for a psychological evaluation, asserting Landers's competency but suggesting diminished mental capacity due to a "closed belief system." The court denied this request, citing Tenth Circuit case law and clarifying that Landers was not asserting an insanity defense.

Landers was convicted of conspiring to impede federal officials and mailing threatening communications, resulting in a guideline range of 135 to 168 months for sentencing. The government sought an upward variance due to Landers's behavior, leading to a 180-month sentence. On appeal, Landers contested the district court's refusal to hold competency proceedings, its denial of the expert witness application, and the sentence exceeding the guideline range. The court affirmed all three decisions, noting that a competency hearing is required only when there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant is mentally incompetent, which was not established in Landers's case. The standard of review applied was reasonableness, where a district court's decision is erroneous only if a reasonable judge would have doubted the defendant's competency.

The district court did not err in refusing to order a 4241 competency proceeding for Landers. Key points supporting this decision include: 

1. Neither the prosecution nor Landers's attorney questioned his competency, with the attorney explicitly stating Landers was competent. The court's inquiry into competency was initiated independently, highlighting the reliance on counsel to identify such issues.
   
2. Evidence, including recorded phone calls with an undercover FBI agent and a letter Landers wrote, demonstrated his ability to plan, think cogently, and manipulate situations, indicating he could understand the proceedings and assist his defense.

3. Landers's disruptive behavior, while notable, was not unique to him; it mirrored that of other anti-government figures, suggesting he was obstructing proceedings rather than being mentally incompetent. His behavior was characterized as calculated protest rather than erratic, contrasting with a cited case where a defendant exhibited clear signs of mental illness.

Overall, the district court reasonably concluded that Landers’s behavior did not create a legitimate doubt about his competency to stand trial.

The Seventh Circuit's decision in United States v. James, 328 F.3d 953 (2003), serves as a key reference point. The court found no basis to question the competency of a defendant who exhibited unusual beliefs, such as attempting to "copyright" his name and file liens against government officials. The court noted that mere eccentricity or unconventional beliefs do not imply incompetence, as many litigants hold legally unsupported views without indicating mental instability. Similarly, in Landers' case, despite his persistent anti-government claims, there was no evidence suggesting he lacked the ability to consult rationally with his attorney or understand the legal proceedings.

Landers claimed the district court erred by denying his request to employ a psychological expert to support a closed belief system defense, which the court rejected based on Tenth Circuit precedent. He later argued for an insanity defense, but the court found this unconvincing. The district court pointed out that Landers did not properly assert the insanity defense or notify the government as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2(a). Instead, Landers' motion focused on the now-rejected closed belief system defense, failing to mention insanity. Although he later argued that he sought a broad mental health evaluation potentially encompassing an insanity defense, the district court's ruling was upheld because he did not provide adequate notice or assert the defense correctly.

The district court correctly determined that Landers did not assert an insanity defense in his motion, as it failed to reference insanity or demonstrate its significance at trial. The court had previously assessed Landers's mental competency through his writings and communications, which indicated a high level of mental function at the time of the offense. Even if his motion were considered a valid assertion of an insanity defense, it was filed untimely—five weeks after the deadline for pretrial motions and just five days before trial. Thus, the district court acted within its discretion in denying the request for an expert due to this lateness. 

Regarding Landers's sentence, he challenged a twelve-month upward variance from the guideline range, arguing it was substantively unreasonable and excessively punitive. However, appellate review applies an abuse of discretion standard, emphasizing substantial deference to the district court's decisions. The district court provided a thorough justification for the variance, citing Landers’s offenses as undermining the criminal justice system, and concluded that the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors warranted this increase. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding the sentence of 180 months reasonable.