Court filing
Amended Order Denying Detention/Transfer Motions and Committing Defendant — United States v. Evan Edwards (a/k/a Ian Heringa) and Joshua…
No. 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP · Doc. 85 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 85 Filed 02/24/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID 363
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VS. CASE NO: 6:22-cr-201-WWB-LHP
EVAN EDWARDS
AMENDED ORDER 1
On December 7, 2022, a grand jury returned an indictment charging
Defendant Evan Edwards with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, one
count of bank fraud, and two counts of visa fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349,
18 U.S.C. § 1344, and 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), respectively. Doc. No. 1. Evan Edwards
was arrested on December 14, 2022, and an initial appearance proceeding pursuant
to Fed. R. Crim. P. 5 was conducted before United States Magistrate Judge David A.
Baker that same day. Doc. Nos. 9, 11.
During the course of the Rule 5 proceedings, Magistrate Judge Baker
determined that there was a question as to Evan Edward’s mental competency to
proceed. Doc. Nos. 9, 14. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Baker continued the
Rule 5 proceedings, provisionally appointed counsel pursuant to the Criminal
1
This Order is amended solely to change the name of the Bureau of Prisons
designated facility.
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 85 Filed 02/24/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID 364
Justice Act, and ordered Evan Edwards temporarily detained and committed to the
custody of the United States Marshal for provision of medical care. Doc. Nos. 9,
17, 21, 25-26. 2 Since that time, Evan Edwards has remained in custody while
receiving medical care at Orlando Regional Medical Center (“ORMC”).
Magistrate Judge Baker held a status conference with counsel on December
21, 2022, and on December 27, 2022 Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd held a
continuation of the Rule 5 hearing via the online Zoom platform, and attempted to
conduct an arraignment. Doc. Nos. 27, 33. Magistrate Judge Kidd was able to
complete a portion of the Rule 5 proceedings – he advised Evan Edwards of his
rights, and summarized the charges and the potential penalties – but was unable to
go forward with any further proceedings or the arraignment. Doc. No. 33.
Magistrate Judge Kidd thereafter held status hearings with counsel on December
28, 2022, and January 4, 2023, ordered ORMC to release Evan Edwards’ medical
records to counsel, and on January 6, 2023, appointed Dr. Ryan C. W. Hall, M.D.,
DFAPA, to examine Evan Edwards pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4247(b).
Doc. Nos. 42, 45, 48, 50.
2
Magistrate Judge Baker initially provisionally appointed the Federal Public
Defender to represent Evan Edwards, but based on a conflict of interest, authorized the
Federal Public Defender’s withdrawal, and provisionally appointed Attorney A. Brian
Phillips under the Criminal Justice Act on December 20, 2022. Doc. Nos. 17, 24-26.
Attorney Phillips continues to represent Evan Edwards to date.
-2-
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 85 Filed 02/24/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID 365
On January 16, 2023, Dr. Hall submitted his expert report, in which he opines
that Evan Edwards is currently incompetent to proceed. Doc. No. 58 (filed under
seal). Counsel for Evan Edwards objected to Dr. Hall’s findings, and filed a motion
for detention hearing. Doc. No. 56. The United States noted its agreement with
Dr. Hall’s findings, and requested that a hearing be set to address competency, with
a commitment order under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) to follow. Doc. No. 57.
By this point, the case had been reassigned to the undersigned, and I
scheduled a status conference with counsel for January 26, 2023. Doc. No. 59.
After hearing from both sides, I directed the parties to file briefing on the question
of whether a detention hearing constitutes a critical stage of the prosecution such
that there must be a determination of competency pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a)
before the Court can proceed to a hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3142. Doc. Nos. 60-61.
I also directed the United States to provide an update on Evan Edwards’ medical
condition, specifically with respect to whether he could be medically released from
ORMC. Id.
The parties timely-filed the requested briefing. Doc. Nos. 65, 78-79. See also
Doc. No. 66 (filed under seal). In the meantime, the United States Marshals Service
designated Evan Edwards to the Columbia Regional Care Center (the “Care
Center”) in Columbia, South Carolina, which provides a program for inmates and
detainees with complex medical issues. See Doc. No. 65. As of the writing of this
-3-
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 85 Filed 02/24/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID 366
Order, Evan Edwards has not yet been transported to the Care Center, but his
transfer is imminent. In response to this information, defense counsel filed a time-
sensitive motion to prohibit Evan Edwards’ transfer, arguing that the transfer
would (1) divest Evan Edwards of any meaningful Sixth Amendment access to
counsel; (2) divest him of reasonable access to visitors; (3) needlessly increase the
time and expense of further proceedings, including an anticipated adversarial
competency evidentiary hearing; and (4) impair the orderly progress of the case.
Doc. No. 77. The United States has filed a response in opposition, Doc. No. 82, and
the motion to prohibit transfer, along with the motion for detention hearing, Doc.
No. 56, are both now ripe for disposition.
The Court addressed both motions with counsel at a status hearing on
February 23, 2022. Doc. Nos. 81, 83. Special Deputy United States Marshal Mike
McClung also appeared via telephone. Doc. No. 83. After a robust discussion
with counsel, and for the reasons stated on the record, the Court made the following
rulings, which are memorialized herein:
1. The Motion to Prohibit Transfer of Defendant Evan Edwards by the
United States Marshal Service (Doc. No. 77) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Defendant may reassert this request, if necessary and appropriate, following
completion of the proceedings set forth in this Order.
-4-
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 85 Filed 02/24/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID 367
2. The Motion for Detention Hearing (Doc. No. 56) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court finds that a detention hearing is a critical
stage of the proceedings, such that if reasonable cause exists that a defendant is
presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him or her mentally
incompetent, the Court must proceed with competency proceedings before moving
forward with any other stages of the case. See., e.g., United States v. Arenburg, 605
F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2010); United States v. McCrary, 569 F.2d 429 (6th Cir. 1978); United
States v. Pinto, Case No. 6:17-cr-68-RBD-KRS, Doc. No. 11 (Feb. 1, 2017); United States
v. Meyer, Case No. 2:11-cr-43-FtM-29SPC, 2011 WL 1519724 (Apr. 20, 2011); United
States v. Moser, 541 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (W.D. Okla. 2008); United States v. Sloan, 820 F.
Supp. 1133 (S.D. Ind. 1993). See also United States v. Peppi, Crim. No. 06-157 (AET);
2007 WL 674746 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2007). Defendant may reassert his request for a
detention hearing following completion of the competency proceedings, if
necessary and appropriate.
3. As previously found by both Magistrate Judge Baker and Magistrate
Judge Kidd, and as counsel for both sides agree, the Court finds that there is
reasonable cause to believe that Evan Edwards may presently be suffering from a
mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he
is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against
him or to assist properly in his defense. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). Accordingly,
-5-
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 85 Filed 02/24/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID 368
Evan Edwards is committed to the custody of the Attorney General for placement
at a suitable facility to conduct a psychiatric or psychological examination of Evan
Edwards, and to prepare and submit to the Court and all parties a psychiatric or
psychological report assessing “whether [Evan Edwards] is suffering from a mental
disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable
to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to
assist properly in his defense.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 4247(b), (c). See also 18 U.S.C. §§
4241(b). Given Evan Edwards’ extensive medical issues and based on the
representations made during the February 23, 2023 status conference, the Court
finds that a “suitable facility” is the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North
Carolina (“FMC Butner”).
4. The term of commitment shall be for a reasonable period, not to exceed
thirty (30) days. 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b). The Attorney General may request, on
motion to the Court, an additional reasonable period of time for evaluation, not to
exceed fifteen (15) days, upon a showing of good cause that the additional time is
necessary to observe and evaluate Evan Edwards. Id.
5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this Order to the United
States Marshals Service. It is ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service
shall promptly advise the Court and counsel for the parties once the Attorney
General has designated a facility for Evan Edwards’ evaluation. Because Evan
-6-
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 85 Filed 02/24/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID 369
Edwards remains detained, the United States Marshal is further DIRECTED to
transport Evan Edwards to the designated facility. And given Evan Edwards’
medical conditions, the United States Marshal is also DIRECTED to notify the
Court when Evan Edwards’ transport commences, and when he arrives at FMC
Butner.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 24, 2023.
Copies furnished to:
United States Marshal
United States Attorney
Counsel for Defendant
-7-
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flmd.408844.85.0.pdf
- Size
- 151,810 bytes
- SHA-256
- 1f119376efb209ec826235f623ff8b13a2e8616896340a6a3cc8cbb154b32f2b
- Original
- PACER (login required)