Title: Pierce v. State
Citation: 293 So. 2d 489
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: April 18, 1974

293 So. 2d 489 (1974)
In re James E. PIERCE, alias
v.
STATE of Alabama.
Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel.
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
SC 611.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 18, 1974.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, petitioner.
Robert R. Bryan, Birmingham, for respondent.
*490 PER CURIAM.
The Writ of Certiorari was granted in this cause on December 12, 1973. After further examination, we are of the opinion that the writ was improvidently granted. Consequently, the writ is due to be quashed.
Writ quashed.
HEFLIN, C. J., MERRILL, COLEMAN and MADDOX, JJ., and LAWSON, Special Judge, concur.
HEFLIN, Chief Justice (concurring in the quashing of the writ):
The petition for writ of certiorari in this case contained only one ground, that being that the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 52 Ala.App. ___, 293 So. 2d 483 was in conflict with a prior opinion of this court.
The defendant here was convicted of first degree murder. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals that court determined that sufficient evidence was adduced at trial to create a "bona fide doubt" as to appellant's competency to stand trial, and thus for that reason "the trial court should have suspended the trial proceeding sua sponte pending a hearing and determination of the competency issue." The Court of Criminal Appeals felt that such result was dictated by an opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court in Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S. Ct. 836, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815 (1966).
The Attorney General in his petition for certiorari alleges that the holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals conflicts with this court's holding in Burns v. State, 246 Ala. 135, 19 So. 2d 450 (1944):
The writ of certiorari was granted in this case on December 12, 1973. Obviously, the only ground upon which the writ was issued was to review whether the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals in this cause was in conflict with the above quoted portion of the opinion in Burns v. State, supra.
There can be no doubt that the only reason that the writ in this case is being quashed is because this court has determined that Burns v. State, supra, is no longer a binding authority. By quashing the writ, the court, in effect, if not explicitly, is overruling Burns v. State, supra.
In the dissent in Seibold v. State, 287 Ala. 549, 253 So. 2d 302 (1970) the following views concerning the meaning of Pate v. Robinson were expressed:
In Seibold v. State, supra, the majority did not follow the implications of the Pate decision and chose to rely on the rule stated in Burns v. State, supra, and companion cases, and affirmed Seibold's conviction, stating:
Seibold then applied to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which was granted. There the court recognized that the majority opinion in Seibold v. State, supra, had not followed Pate v. Robinson, supra. In declaring the conviction of Seibold invalid, the court, among other things, stated:
While the federal district court could not overrule a case law rule of this court, this court is under no such disability. By quashing the writ in this case, it is clear that this court has overruled Burns v. State, supra; Seibold v. State, supra; Granberry v. State, 184 Ala. 5, 63 So. 975 (1913); Rohn v. State, 186 Ala. 5, 65 So. 42 (1914); Whitfield v. State, 236 Ala. 312, 182 So. 42 (1938), and Ex Parte Bush, 247 Ala. 351, 24 So. 2d 353 (1946), as those cases would apply to the point in issue.
The law is now settled that if sufficient doubt of the defendant's present mental competency is raised before or during trial, then it is mandatory that there be a judicial hearing to determine his mental competency to stand trial, and that the refusal of the trial court to grant such a hearing is reviewable.
I concur in the quashing of the writ.
LAWSON, Special Judge, concurs.