Document: 462 U.S. 111 103 S.Ct. 2261 76 L.Ed.2d 794 Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden, Petitionerv.John FULFORD. No. 82-1408. June 6, 1983. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent John Fulford was found guilty of murder by a Louisiana jury in 1972. His conviction affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court, v. Nix, 327 So.2d 301 (La.1975), and, after exhausting state post-conviction remedies, he sought federal habeas corpus relief. The United States District Court for Western denied relief, Pet.App. A-21, but Appeals Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that "we cannot, with certitude befitting court, affirm possessed mental competency participate meaningfully his trial." Pet.App., at A-18 (footnote omitted). We grant motion respondent leave proceed forma pauperis and petition certiorari, reverse judgment Appeals, 692 F.2d 354 (5th Cir.1982). 2 bone contention this case respondent's stand trial more than 11 years ago. On morning counsel moved appoint commission inquire into trial.1 At same time severance. Neither nor had previously broached question competency, nothing appears record which suggests history or emotional difficulties.2 sole evidence submitted support appointment testimony one Dr. McCray, local psychiatrist. Until immediately preceding trial, McCray never seen, nor, so far as rev als, heard of, respondent. Based upon prison cell interview approximately hour day before testified following fashion, summarized Appeals: 3 "Dr. noted an evaluation usually requires several sessions well supporting from clinical psychologist. Finding be oriented time, place person, nevertheless paranoid delusions rendered him incompetent trial. Specifically, told withholding names alibi witnesses who could prove innocence fear they would arrested prevented testifying behalf." Pet., A-15. 4 While less explicit it might have been issue, we think fair reading its opinion indicates concluded under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(8) court's determination competent not "fairly supported record." See Pet. A-16, 17; Sumner Mata, 449 539, 101 764, 66 722 (1981). believe that, reaching conclusion, erroneously substituted own credibility courts—a prerogative 2254 does allow it. Marshall Lonberger, --- ----, 843, 74 646 (1983). 5 judge explained refusal order hearing two per curiam opinions, contained factual findings relevant decision. First, convinced "oriented date cognizant everything around him." further Fulford's conduct during "thoroughly convinced" able assist defense. did "deem necessary fill all other matters appeared throughout post-trial motions filed because will adequately represent fact." As set out margin, there is substantial judge's statement.3 Third, only basis advanced tentative conclusion suffered delusions—respondent's failure inform lawyers identities witnesses—was unfounded. These behalf week witnesses. observed, "it clear Mr. withhold preparation ' 6 Most importantly our purposes, surprise, eleventh-hour "was just subterfuge part defendant attempt keep going tried different defendants." explained: 7 "During course selection matter, days took select jury, everytime either defendants approach converse concerning selection, turn head direction. I got distinct impression what attempting play game try get severed defendants. gathered legal maneuverings sever some additional maneuvering made later time. add, contrary doctor determine whether unable defense, alleged eye witnesses, stated innocence, were called testify alibi. Throughout entire accorded complete full defense saw beginning end any way detracted rights. hesitate do feel plan designed disrupt prevent being t ied co-defendants." 8 these observations, insufficient likelihood warrant commission. 9 affirmed, relying arguments judge, noting "findings are amply So.2d, 324. also observed "ability . observe length preliminary hearings case." It note "limited time" spent 10 apparently unpersuasive. There no dispute proper standard applied determining correctness actions, see Pate Robinson, 383 375, 386, 86 836, 842, 15 815 (1966); Drope Missouri, 420 162, 95 896, 43 (1975). Thus, three judges appear differed seven Justices Louisiana, district respect court. principal explanation offered accept previous judicial assessments excerpt opinion: "The urges capability attorney simply refused so. But if based delusions, cannot successfully urged actually capable assisting counsel." 12 "A troubling aspect present issue finding trying delay possibly obtain Given timing motion, subsequent request severance, uphold court confronted barebones statement support. That case. McCray's unimpeached. qualifications psychiatrist unchallenged prosecution. Although examination brief, precisely brevity suggested needed. facts, committed constitutional error conducting proceedings." 17. 13 Before undertakes overturn conclusions must 2254(d)(8). Under slightest hesitation saying observation conduct, both prior trial; statements regarding cooperate them; inferences fact disclose occurred, remedied; weight attributed unannounced, last-minute commission; drawn pursue psychiatric beyond "tentative" stage, despite ample opportunity so, provide competence 14 obligated credit ultimate solely "unimpeached." This law. "Face face living witness original trier facts holds position advantage appellate excluded. In doubtful cases exercise power often proves most accurate method ascertaining truth how can say wrong? ." Oregon Medical Society, 343 326, 339, 72 690, 698, 96 L.Ed. 978 (1952), quoted supra. 16 reasons above record" answered affirmative. 17 accordingly 18 Reversed. 19 Justice WHITE, concurring judgment. 20 applies underlying questions background fact. Questions law, mixed law fact, such "ultimate constitutionality pretrial identification procedures," 455 591, 597, 102 1303, 1306, 71 480 (1982), plea voluntary purposes Constitution, 849, (1983), may reviewed independently. deciding questions, "the give reach light standard." supra, U.S., S.Ct., 1306. underlie th[e] conclusion" governed Ibid. 21 Our treated least 174-175, 175, n. 10, 905, (1975); 385-386, (1966). White Estelle, 757, 973 (1983) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting denial certiorari). precedents notwithstanding, today reverses strength 'fairly record.' " Ante, 117. since purely question, supported" inapplicable. offers whatsoever follow Pate, certainly appropriate overrule summarily. If doubt classification should certiorari oral argument. 22 Since opts favor summary action, however, cast my vote accordingly. Absent plenary reconsideration agree historical Courts reviewing judgments criminal proceedings involving convictions. However, Court's reversed. 23 details undisputed commission: "Fulford's 'tentative' so." testimony, hand, indicated genuine but, points out, ante, 117-118, obligation Hence, even considering freely-reviewable pure conclude deprive rights, therefore concur 24 BRENNAN, whom STEVENS joins, dissenting. 25 WHITE MARSHALL, post, 2254(d) apply competency. MARSHALL entirely inappropriate dispose necessarily limited briefing parties date. agree, MARSHALL's suggestion decide Accepting majority's premise merits attention all, 26 27 dissent. wrong assuming "a sufficient [the defendant's] require inquiry question." 180, 908, decisions clearly establish held subject review. Id., 179-181, 907-908; 29 Even correct applies, justification disposition rules governing petitions help elicit information review warranted. They permit decision papers. 30 particular, Rule 22.2 states brief opposition shall short possible." compliance rule indigent mimeographed pages, portion devoted argument presents worthy Court—an expected prevail given traditional learning "is not, has been, primarily concerned correction errors lower opinions."1 Only few paragraphs discuss record.2 31 supports necessary, afford chance issue. done merely issuing (1) disposed without (2) permitting sides file briefs merits. asking too much. Respondent's pursuant La.Code Crim.Pro.Ann. 644, empowers qualified physicians "examine report condition defendant." Likewise, Article 643 Code Criminal Procedure provides "trial may, sound discretion, when reasonable grounds defendant's capacity proceed." commission, "It reported placed lunacy State Florida 1953, declared borderline [T]he aforesaid unconfirmed requested check convened result thereof." IV Trans., 933. contains mention incident, much confirmation allegation. For example, informed "I defend myself, point I'd like across." sentencing January 1974 permission pro se. After presiding expressed reluctance this, earlier assertion incompetence, stated: gave great deal thought coming here talk funny, I'm cotton patch perhaps am, protecting election artfully reversal awarded new And election. right, future, blow [no one] blowed me. fully understand am doing, facing consequences mind still elect self ask you me right this." irony change heart lost awk[w]ard petitioner argue attested McCray," "then seek se 41. "awkwardness" becomes apparent claim proceeded argued Judge Veron voluntarily intelligently elected 42. pleadings courts indicate, abilities scarcely those incompetent. member "has demonstrated skill experience writ applications Court." Fulford, 299 789 (La.1974) (Nixon, dissenting). Address Chief Vinson American Bar Association, Sept. 7, 1949, 69 Sup.Ct. v, vi (1949). With resources sovereign State, printed plus Appendix. Petitioner's papers signed Attorney General, Attorney, Assistant Attorneys.

Category: 0