Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/411/661/424025/
Timestamp: 2019-11-18 03:06:02
Document Index: 135512322

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10', '§ 3481', '§ 3481', '§ 2241', '§ 9', '§ 4244']

Leroy Sims, Jr., Petitioner-appellant, v. Ward Lane, Warden of the Indiana State Prison, Respondent-appellee, 411 F.2d 661 (7th Cir. 1969) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Seventh Circuit › 1969 › Leroy Sims, Jr., Petitioner-appellant, v. Ward Lane, Warden of the Indiana State Prison, Respondent-...
Leroy Sims, Jr., Petitioner-appellant, v. Ward Lane, Warden of the Indiana State Prison, Respondent-appellee, 411 F.2d 661 (7th Cir. 1969)
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 411 F.2d 661 (7th Cir. 1969) May 23, 1969
This appeal is from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In 1964, petitioner received a life sentence after a jury trial finding him guilty of kidnapping and robbery in contravention of Burns' Ind.Stat.Ann. §§ 10-2901 and 10-4101. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, Sims v. State, 246 Ind. 660, 208 N.E.2d 469 (1965), and certiorari was denied. 384 U.S. 922, 86 S. Ct. 1374, 16 L. Ed. 2d 442.
These facts were not known by the trial court until the time of sentencing.1
In rejecting petitioner's first contention, the Supreme Court of Indiana stated (246 Ind. 660, 208 N.E.2d 469, 472):
* Petitioner asserts that his counsels' refusal to permit him to testify violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also relies on Article 1, Section 13, of the Indiana Constitution providing that an accused "shall have the right * * * to be heard by himself and counsel * * *" and on Section 3481 of the Criminal Code, providing that "the person charged shall, at his own request, be a competent witness" (18 U.S.C. § 3481).
To like effect, see Hudgins v. United States, 340 F.2d 391, 396 (3d Cir. 1965); United States ex rel. Darcy v. Handy, 203 F.2d 407, 427-428 (3d Cir. 1953), certiorari denied, 346 U.S. 865, 74 S. Ct. 103, 98 L. Ed. 375.
Even if the federal statute removing the disability of an accused to testify were applicable to the proceedings in the Indiana courts, that statute provides only that "the person charged shall, at his own request, be a competent witness." 18 U.S.C. § 3481. Here no such request was communicated to the trial court during the trial. Petitioner relies on United States v. Bentvena, 319 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1963), certiorari denied sub nom. Ormento v. United States, 375 U.S. 940, 84 S. Ct. 345, 11 L. Ed. 2d 271, but there, through his counsel, defendant Salvatore Panico advised the trial court that he wished to testify in his own behalf, and he then personally renewed this request.2 The trial judge not having been given a timely opportunity to rule on petitioner's asserted right to testify, it would appear that petitioner's quarrel is with his trial counsel. As in the Garguilo case, there is nothing to show that this trial was a "sham or a mockery" so that he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief by reason of ineffective assistance of counsel.
To our knowledge, Article 1, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution, which provides in part "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right * * * to be heard by himself and counsel; * * *" has never been interpreted as giving an accused an absolute right to testify over his counsel's objections. Counsel for petitioner has cited no Indiana case holding that he was denied a fair trial where his counsel concluded that it was in his best interest not to testify and where the trial judge was not even informed of his wish to testify. McDowell v. State, 225 Ind. 495, 497, 76 N.E.2d 249 (1947), suggests that the Indiana courts understand that provision as merely authorizing a defendant to undertake his own defense and subsequent appeal.3 Moreover, we are bound by the interpretation of the state's highest court in interpreting its own constitution; the Indiana Supreme Court's rejection of petitioner's argument on appeal lays to rest the notion that petitioner had an Indiana constitutional right to testify against the advice of counsel. See 208 N.E.2d at p. 472. Finally, even if there were such an Indiana constitutional requirement, absent a similar requirement in the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment, its violation would not entitle petitioner to relief in this federal habeas corpus proceeding. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312, 83 S. Ct. 745, 9 L. Ed. 2d 770; see 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (3).
As already noted, under the Indiana Supreme Court's interpretation of the Indiana sanity hearing statute, even though the jury had already tried this case, the trial court still had discretion to grant a sanity hearing if it had "reasonable ground for believing the defendant to be insane."4 Petitioner claims that this record reveals such ground, and that it was an abuse of discretion to deny the hearing. In Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S. Ct. 788, 4 L. Ed. 2d 824 (per curiam), the test for competency to stand trial was stated to be "whether he [the defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding — and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." This test has been applied in our perusal of this record to determine whether petitioner's constitutional5 or statutory rights were violated.
In support of his demand for a psychiatric hearing, petitioner relies on three matters of record: (1) the affidavit of his two trial lawyers, (2) his own conduct in attempting to select a jury pro se, and (3) his probation report. The district court agreed with the Indiana Supreme Court and the trial court that this material did not raise the existence of a bona fide doubt as to defendant's competence within the meaning of Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385, 86 S. Ct. 836, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815.6 We share that opinion.
Our study of the voir dire examination conducted by petitioner reveals a quick mind and a clear grasp of the seriousness of the situation confronting him. As the district judge stated, it shows that "Sims had a rational as well as a factual understanding of the nature of the proceedings." Petitioner's voir dire conduct was accurately described by one of his trial lawyers as "a brilliant job of cross-examination but a very poor job of voir dire." The transcript of that examination does reveal petitioner's deep-seated feeling or "delusions" (quoting the district judge) of racial persecution, but that is not "reasonable ground for believing the defendant to be insane." See United States ex rel. De Stefano v. Woods, 382 F.2d 557, 559 (7th Cir. 1967), affirmed on other grounds, 392 U.S. 631, 88 S. Ct. 2093, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1308. If hypersensitivity to discrimination were to be the hallmark, the courts would indeed be flooded with psychiatric hearings. We are not prepared to say that a criminal defendant's belligerence toward and contempt and suspicion of jurors indicates a lack of ability to comprehend the nature of the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense. Refusal to accept the finality of an adverse verdict and recriminations against unsuccessful trial counsel may result from a sincere belief in one's innocence or an inability to admit one's guilt, but do not in themselves raise a bona fide doubt as to competence during trial.
Nothing in Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S. Ct. 836, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815, holds that it is a denial of due process of law to refuse a competency hearing where, after a conviction, the accused's lawyers submit, without any expert testimony or convincing record support, that he was insane during the trial and at the time of the commission of the alleged offenses.7 We are in accord with the conclusion in petitioner's brief that "It is not possible to say, on this record, that Sims was a mental basket case during his trial in the Marion County [Indiana] Criminal Court."
The question is whether Sims' Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated by the Indiana courts' refusal to provide him with a psychiatric examination and sanity hearing before pronouncing sentence. The district court judge thought this was the "more serious allegation raised by the petition." In my opinion the district court erred in not ordering Indiana to grant a new trial at which a preliminary hearing should be held to determine Sims' competence. My view is based primarily upon Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S. Ct. 836, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815 (1966).
The material considered by the district court and the majority, relevant to this point, is the affidavit of Sims' attorneys in support of the new trial motion, his own pro se activities at the original trial, and the pre-sentence probation report. The Indiana trial court and the district court both commend Sims' two court-appointed attorneys — who served for eight weeks without compensation in this case — for their probity and professional expertise. The affidavit states the belief that "defendant is insane, and that he was insance during the trial * * *"1 ; that they interviewed him shortly after conviction and found him "unable to comprehend the fact" that he was finally convicted of kidnapping, and that he accused the attorneys of having been bribed not to protect his interest. The affidavit states that the attorneys are not expert in psychiatry and that they did not recognize Sims' incompetence from his bizarre performance before and during the trial. Both the district court and this court view the affidavits as "conclusory" and devoid of facts or expert opinion.
The majority opinion refers to Sims' "quick mind and a clear grasp of the seriousness of the situation confronting him," and to the district court's, and one of Sims' attorneys', appraisal of Sims' intellect. However, a quick mind and an apparent understanding of a serious situation do not obviate the possibility of a serious mental disorder. See Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385-386, 86 S. Ct. 836, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815; Oliver, Psychiatry and Mental Health, 73-78 (1950). See also Menninger, The Vital Balance, 222-240 (1963), for several examples of rational behavior coupled with extreme personality disorders.
This court has apparently resolved the sanity question against Sims without a state court hearing at which facts could be developed to bind federal courts. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S. Ct. 745, 9 L. Ed. 2d 770 (1963). I consider that the material presented, together with the Indiana judge's own previous observation, should have raised a reasonable doubt sufficient to impel that court to order a hearing at that time into the question of Sims' competence. It seems anomalous that what struck the majority as a "deep-seated feeling" about racial persecution, and the district court as "delusions," did not evoke a similar response from the Indiana trial court, and together with the affidavit and report raise a "reasonable doubt" of Sims' competency sufficient to impel an inquiry.
The affidavit in support of the motion for a new trial was filed on March 26, 1964, and the sentencing occurred later that day. The motion for new trial was not heard until the following month
United States v. Haynes, 81 F. Supp. 63 (W.D. Pa. 1948), affirmed, 173 F.2d 223 (3d Cir. 1949) (per curiam), is distinguishable for the same reason
Petitioner also relies on Nahas v. State, 199 Ind. 117, 155 N.E. 259 (1927), but in that case, against defendant's wishes, his counsel withdrew a not guilty plea and entered a plea of guilty. The court did not deal with that portion of Article 1, Section 13, quoted above
Burns' Indiana Stat.Anno. § 9-1706a. In contrast to the "reasonable ground" test in the Indiana statute, the Illinois statute involved in United States ex rel. Robinson v. Pate, 345 F.2d 691, 695 (7th Cir. 1965), modified and affirmed, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S. Ct. 836, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815, required a sanity hearing "whenever a bona fide doubt is raised as to the defendant's sanity at the time of trial."
He relies on the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
There four defense witnesses expressed the opinion that Robinson was insane at trial time (383 U.S. at p. 383, 86 S. Ct. 836)
It seems well established that Robinson does not require a competency hearing in every case in which the question is raised. Wilson v. Bailey, 375 F.2d 663 (4th Cir. 1967); Tyler v. Beto, 391 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1968). Nothing in the cases relied on by petitioner is inconsistent with that interpretation. See, e. g., Green v. United States, 128 U.S. App.D.C. 408, 389 F.2d 949, 953-955 (1967) (en banc). On the contrary, those cases clearly establish that the convening of a competency hearing is within the discretion of the trial judge based on the facts which are before him. Heard v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 390 F.2d 866 (1968). We have examined the cases cited by petitioner and find each to have turned on its special facts. We merely hold that the facts relied on in the present case do not rise to the level of a bona fide doubt as to petitioner's competency at the time of his trial.
18 U.S.C. § 4244, Mental Incompetency after Arrest and before Trial, and Sec. 4245, Mental Incompetency Undisclosed at Trial, indicate the Congressional concern that defendants in federal cases be protected against prosecution, conviction and sentence where there is reasonable cause for believing the defendant is mentally incompetent, and impose upon the United States Attorney the obligation, if he has that belief, to move for determination, and an obligation upon the court where a motion is made in behalf of an accused or upon the court's own motion where such a belief is held; and under Sec. 4245 impose a similar obligation upon the Director of Bureau of Prisons to bring to the attention of the Attorney General who in turn shall transmit the Director's belief to the sentencing court which shall thereupon have the obligation of conducting a hearing. While these Sections pertain to federal cases, they have implications for federal habeas corpus proceedings where there is a claim of federal unconstitutional trial of a mentally incompetent