Opinion ID: 407993
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Psychiatric Exam

Text: 17 Hollis argues he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to order an independent psychiatric examination to determine Hollis' competency. Hollis argues that he was not satisfied with the results of the court's psychiatric examination and told his attorney that he wanted a more thorough examination. 18 The district court held that a second psychiatric evaluation was not required because there was no evidence that Hollis was incompetent. Hollis cooperated with his attorney in the preparation of his case; had no previous psychiatric involvement; and elicited no signs of mental instability. Hollis' attorney's failure to order a second psychiatric examination, where there was no evidence that such an examination was necessary, did not amount to a failure to exercise the customary skills and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney under the standard for effective assistance established in United States v. Easter, supra, 539 F.2d at 666. See Harkins v. Wyrick, 552 F.2d 1308, 1313-14 (8th Cir. 1977).