Competency to Plea

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Pejman Kamkarian

Case No.: 22-2366

Officials: Wood, Hamilton, and Kirsch, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Competency to Plea

While executing a search warrant at Kamkarian’s residence, FBI agents seized computers that contained 12 videos and over 46,000 images of child pornography. Following this, Kamkarian was released on bond but was mandated to engage in mental health treatment. Although Kamkarian attended counseling sessions, he declined to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. There were indications of potential suicide, leading to Kamkarian’s hospitalization. During his time at the hospital, he was transported to court, where, under oath, he engaged in a plea colloquy. The court ensured that Kamkarian possessed the ability to read, write, and comprehend English; had clear cognitive faculties and an understanding of the legal proceedings; expressed satisfaction with his legal counsel’s advice; affirmed that his guilty plea was voluntary and not coerced. Consequently, the court accepted Kamkarian’s plea.

Subsequently, with new legal representation, Kamkarian made a motion to retract his guilty plea. He argued that during his initial plea, he was undergoing in-patient treatment for depression. Although he was granted a psychological evaluation, his request for an interpreter was denied. A forensic psychologist conducted an interview with Kamkarian, reviewed his treatment records, and concluded that Kamkarian suffered from Major Depressive Disorder, but this condition did not render him unfit to enter a guilty plea, and he faced no language-related communication difficulties. Despite Kamkarian’s claims, the district judge dismissed his motion, noting that she vividly remembered the hearing during which Kamkarian appeared neither distressed nor confused, and did not seem to be under any form of duress. The judge discredited Kamkarian’s testimony and proceeded to sentence him to 87 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision, affirming that the district court’s factual determinations were not evidently mistaken, and its handling of the case remained within the bounds of its discretion.

Affirmed.

Decided 08/23/23

Full Text