United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Criminal Procedure — Ex Post Facto Clause — competency
Where the district court used a sentencing guideline not in effect at the time of the crime, the sentence must be vacated.
“On appeal, Woodard argues that the district court abused its discretion by not ordering a second competency evaluation. Because the district court reached a reasonable conclusion after it reviewed a previous psychological evaluation, considered the advice of two mental health professionals, and considered Woodard’s interactions with her attorney, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. In addition, although Woodard argues that she did not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty during her Rule 11 colloquy, a review of the record shows that she did and that no red flags were raised that would alert the court to the contrary. Finally, we agree with her last argument that the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause at sentencing by sentencing her under the wrong version of the Sentencing Guidelines. Therefore, we remand this case for resentencing, but affirm the district court’s judgment in all other respects.”
Affirmed in part, and Vacated in part.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, McKinney, J., Williams, J.