Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05160/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05160-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Felix Adams
Appellant
Attorney General
Appellee
Mike Parsons
Appellee

Document Text:

l _t., .u; }) 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United St&~i!-~~lrt~! At~ . Te'.!'lth cn~t.u•, 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SEP 1 61992 

FELIX ADAMS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

MIKE PARSONS and ATTORNEY GENERAL of 

the State of Oklahoma, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk . ) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-5160 

) (D.C. No. 90-C-525-E) 

) (N.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, and BARRETT, Circuit Judge, and 

BRIMMER,** District Judge. 

**Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, 

District Court for the District 

designation. 

District Judge, United States 

of Wyoming, sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-5160 Document: 010110322328 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 1
Prose Petitioner Felix Adams appeals the district court's 

denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. We are aware that, as a pro se litigant, 

Petitioner's pleadings are entitled to liberal construction. See 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, after 

careful consideration of the parties' briefs and the appellate 

record, we conclude that Petitioner's arguments are without merit 

and we affirm. 

Petitioner received a sentence of thirty years' imprisonment 

after pleading guilty to murder in the second degree. Petitioner 

subsequently filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, requesting to withdraw his 

guilty plea due to incompetency. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal 

Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a determination 

of the feasibility of establishing Petitioner's competency at that 

time. The trial court concluded that a retrospective 

determination of Petitioner's competency was feasible, and 

following a jury determination that Petitioner was competent, the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction and 

sentence. 

In his petition for habeas corpus relief, Petitioner claims 

that his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were 

violated when (1) the trial court failed to hold a postexamination competency hearing prior to accepting his guilty plea, 

and (2) the trial court failed to determine his sanity at the time 

he committed the offense prior to accepting his guilty plea. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-5160 Document: 010110322328 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 2
Petitioner originally pled not guilty to a charge of first 

degree murder. Prior to trial, Petitioner was sent to Eastern 

State Hospital for a period of four months for evaluation of his 

competency to stand trial and his possible insanity at the time he 

committed the offense. Following his release from Eastern State 

Hospital, he was examined by independent psychiatrists at his 

attorney's request. No post-examination hearing was requested by 

Petitioner nor was any such hearing conducted by the trial court 

sua sponte. It appears that, based on the psychiatric reports and 

upon the recommendation of his counsel, Petitioner withdrew his 

not guilty plea, and pursuant to a plea agreement, entered a plea 

of guilty to a lesser charge of second degree murder. 

Initially, Petitioner argues that the trial court violated 

his due process rights by not holding a post-examination 

competency hearing pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 22, §§ 1175.3, 

1175.4, prior to accepting his guilty plea. 1 See Scott v. State, 

730 P.2d 7, 7-8 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986)(detailed discussion of 

Oklahoma's statutory competency procedures). Although once a 

1 Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1175.3(0) states in part: 

D. If the court finds there is a doubt as to the 

competency of the person, it shall order the person to 

be examined by doctors or appropriate technicians. 

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1175.4(A) states in part: 

A. After the doctor, doctors or technicians have 

made the determination required in Section 1175.3 of 

this title, a hearing on the competency of the person 

shall be held only upon application of the defendant or 

the state or upon the formal setting of a competency 

hearing by the court. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-5160 Document: 010110322328 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 3
defendant's competency is placed in doubt, a post-examination 

hearing is mandatory, id. at 7, the failure of the trial court to 

hold a post-examination competency hearing concurrent with trial 

"is not per se violative of due process." Boltz v. State, 806 

P.2d 1117, 1121 (Okla. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 143 

(1991). The Supreme Court indicated that if it is feasible to 

make a competency determination at a subsequent time based on 

credible and competent evidence, due process is satisfied. Pate 

v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 377 (1966); see also Boltz v. State, 

806 P.2d at 1121 (error of the trial court in failing to conduct 

competency hearing at the time of trial can be cured if meaningful 

hearing can be held later). The defendant's competency hearing in 

Boltz was not held until three and one-half years after trial. 

However, because all necessary records, evidence, and witnesses 

were available, the retrospective determination of competency was 

not prejudicial. Boltz v. State, 806 P.2d at 1121-22. 

In this case, Petitioner's competency hearing was held two 

years following his guilty plea. The matter was tried to a jury 

and all necessary records and witnesses were available. 

Petitioner was found competent. Therefore, the district court's 

error in failing to hold a post-examination competency hearing at 

the time Petitioner entered his guilty plea was cured. See id. at 

1121. 

Finally, Petitioner argues that the trial court had a duty to 

determine his sanity at the time he committed the offense prior to 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-5160 Document: 010110322328 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 4
accepting his guilty plea. It appears that Petitioner confuses 

his statutory right to a post-examination competency hearing with 

the insanity defense. 

The question of an accused's present competency to 

stand trial is a separate matter from a defense of 

insanity, that is, the inability to distinguish right 

from wrong at the time of the offense. Competency is 

defined as "the present ability of a person arrested for 

or charged with a crime to understand the nature of the 

charges and proceedings brought against him, and is able 

to effectively and rationally assist in his defense." 

Miller v. State, 751 P.2d 733, 736-37 (Okla. Crim. App. 

1988)(quoting Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1175.1(1)); see also 

Frederick v. State, 811 P.2d 601, 603 (Okla. Crim. App. 199l)(the 

determination of whether an accused is competent at the time the 

crime was committed has no application when measuring the validity 

of a guilty plea). 

Petitioner argues Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) to 

support his contention. In Ake, the Supreme Court held that when 

a defendant has indicated that his sanity will be a factor at 

trial, access to a psychiatrist must be provided if the defendant 

cannot afford one. Id. at 74. This holding is inapposite. By 

entering a plea of guilty, Petitioner waived his defenses, 

including the insanity defense. United States v. Donohoe, 458 

F.2d 237, 239 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 865 (1972). The 

trial court, when accepting Petitioner's plea, was thorough in 

exploring Petitioner's understanding of the consequences of 

pleading guilty, especially his understanding that entering the 

plea acted as a waiver of any insanity defense. Sentencing Tr. at 

3-4, 8-10. 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-5160 Document: 010110322328 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 5
In conclusion, the court was justified in retrospectively 

judging Petitioner competent at the time he entered his guilty 

plea, see Tanner v. United States, 434 F.2d 260, 262 (10th Cir. 

1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 912 (1971), and any insanity defense 

which Petitioner may have had was effectively waived by entry of 

his guilty plea, see United States v. Donohoe, 458 F.2d at 239. 

Therefore, the judgment of the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Oklahoma denying Petitioner's request for 

habeas corpus relief is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Clarence A. Brimmer 

District Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-5160 Document: 010110322328 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 6