Case Title: State v. Robinson

Citation: 111 Ariz. 153, 526 P.2d 396

Docket Number: 2610

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1974-09-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
111 Ariz. 153 (1974) 526 P.2d 396 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Willie James ROBINSON, Appellant. No. 2610. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. September 20, 1974. *154 Gary K. Nelson, Former Atty. Gen., N. Warner Lee, Atty. Gen., by Stanley L. Patchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, by H. Allen Gerhardt, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal by the defendant Willie James Robinson from a judgment of guilty to the crime of assault with intent to commit robbery which was entered pursuant to a guilty plea. We are asked to consider only one question on appeal and that is whether there was an adequate determination that the defendant was competent at the time to enter a plea of guilty. The facts necessary for a determination of the issue before us are as follows. On 14 November 1971 the defendant Robinson was charged by criminal complaint with the crime of armed robbery. On 9 December 1971 defendant moved for a mental examination as provided in § 13-1621 A.R.S. Doctors Bindelglas and Wellish examined the defendant and agreed that his competency to stand trial was questionable. Both recommended hospitalization for further examination. A hearing was held, and on the basis of the reports of the two psychiatrists, the court, on 3 January 1972, found the defendant incompetent to stand trial and the defendant was committed to the Arizona State Hospital. On 24 March 1972 the Superintendent of the Arizona State Hospital reported to the court that the defendant's competency was restored. The report was supported by written statements of Mrs. Muriel Wittleder, psychiatric social worker, and Dr. Michael F. Cleary, psychiatrist. Dr. Cleary stated: And Mrs. Wittleder stated: A hearing was held on 6 April 1972. Upon stipulation of counsel the matter was submitted without oral testimony on the report of the Superintendent of the State Hospital, and the defendant was on that date declared competent to stand trial. Preliminary hearing was waived, and the defendant bound over to the Superior Court. On 17 May 1972 a hearing was held on change of plea. The defendant agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of assault with intent to commit robbery. At the hearing the following transpired: Another hearing was scheduled for 17 June 1972. On that latter date the plea *156 was accepted and the defendant was thereafter sentenced to serve from 10 to 14 years in the Arizona State Prison. The defendant first urges that the hearing on restoration of his competency was insufficient. He further argues that in any event, under Sieling v. Eyman, 9 Cir., 478 F.2d 211 (1973), a determination of competency to plead guilty requires a more searching examination of defendant's mental state than does a determination of competency to stand trial. The procedure to be followed once a defendant's competency to stand trial has been brought into question is outlined in § 13-1621 A.R.S. A hearing to determine competency is required in the first instance under § 13-1621(E) A.R.S. If the defendant is found to be incompetent and is then committed to an authorized institution, § 13-1621(H)(2) A.R.S., another hearing on restoration of his competency must be held before he may be tried. § 13-1621(H) A.R.S.; State v. Williams, 110 Ariz. 104, 515 P.2d 849 (1973); State v. Blazak, 105 Ariz. 216, 462 P.2d 84 (1969). Section 13-1621(H) A.R.S. provides as follows: The court's minute entry reads as follows: The parties may waive a hearing and submit the matter on the reports as was done here. State v. Lopez, 110 Ariz. 198, 516 P.2d 571 (1973). The defendant complains that the report of the Superintendent of the State Hospital was inadequate for a determination of competency. That report consisted of a form report signed by the Superintendent, together with the reports of Mrs. Wittleder, the social worker, and Dr. Michael Cleary, the psychiatrist. Defendant suggests that the minute entry would indicate that the court considered only the form report, and ignored the reports of the social worker and the psychiatrist. We feel that is a rather strained reading of the minute entry. The filing dates on the form report and the accompanying reports of the social worker and the psychiatrist indicate that all were filed together. We can only interpret the court's reference to the "report of the Superintendent" to mean the form report plus the attached written reports of the social worker and the psychiatrist. The entire report was sufficient for a determination of competency, and we hold that the trial court properly found that the defendant was competent to stand trial. We then come to the second prong of the defendant's argument that even if competency to stand trial was established, defendant's competency to plead guilty was never established. In State v. Hostler, 109 Ariz. 212, 507 P.2d 974 (1973) this court stated: However, one month after our decision in Hostler, supra, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that competency to stand trial is not the equivalent of competency to plead guilty and *157 thereby waive constitutional rights. The court wrote: In State v. Decello, 111 Ariz. 46, 523 P.2d 74, 1974, we considered Sieling, supra, and Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S. Ct. 1320, 16 L. Ed. 2d 429 (1966) in relation to a defendant who was found competent to stand trial and who contended that an additional finding of competency to waive the right to a jury trial should also have been made. In rejecting Decello's contention we stated: In Decello, supra, we distinguished Sieling, supra, as follows: In the instant case there was a "substantial question" as to defendant's mental capacity and defendant's sanity was "in issue." For these reasons we believe that the trial court was required to determine *158 whether the defendant was competent to plead guilty in addition to the finding that he was competent to stand trial. Westbrook and Sieling, supra. Upon issuance of the mandate in this matter, it is ordered that the matter is remanded to the Superior Court of Maricopa County for a hearing, within 60 days, to determine, if possible, whether defendant was competent to enter a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea of guilty. The finding of the court together with the reporter's transcript of said hearing shall then be promptly transmitted to this court for further consideration. HAYS, C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur. *159****