Legal Document

448 U.S. 725 100 Supreme Court Reporter 2905 65 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1086 William Jack HAMMETTv.State of TEXAS. Number 79-5050. July 2, 1980. PER CURIAM. 1 Hammett, the petitioner in this case, has been convicted murder and sentenced to death. The conviction sentence were affirmed by Texas Criminal Appeals, 578 South Western Reporter, 2nd 699 (1979). states, his attorney does not deny, that he informed counsel did wish pursue any further appeals case. Nevertheless, filed a petition requesting review Court. 2 Petitioner now moves for dismissal petition, stating under oath "made decision voluntarily with full knowledge consequences, only after due consideration all facts circumstances regarding case." Affidavit June 3, Under Rule 60 Rules (1970), or appellant may withdraw appeal. In response motion, petitioner's question competence. State oppose motion. absence issue as competence against will, there is no basis denying See Gilmore versus Utah, 429 1012, 1014, 97 436, 437, 50 632 (1976) (BURGER, C. J., concurring). Moreover, withdrawal will foreclose an appropriate application collateral relief. Accordingly, motion granted. 3 It so ordered. 4 Mr. Justice MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 5 today permits petitioner, prisoner acting pro se, take first step towards enforcement death withdrawing writ certiorari on behalf appointed counsel. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions continue adhere my view penalty unconstitutional circumstances, accordingly dissent. addition, however, present indefensible even more restrictive Eighth Amendment taken majority Brethren. 6 takes its action despite fact we have already granted similar case determine whether Constitution violated manner which acquires psychiatric testimony introduced at punishment phase trial obtain jury verdict setting Estelle Smith, 445 926, 1311, 63 758 (1980). Appeals Fifth Circuit held established pattern conduct obtains necessary send defendant violates Fifth, Sixth, Fourteenth Amendments. Smith Estelle, 602 Federal 694 Thus acquiesces apparent be executed hold next Term cannot enforced cases such one. do believe consent permit impose forbidden Constitution; "the procedure approves amounts nothing less than state-administered suicide." Lenhard Wolff, 444 807, 815, 29, 62 20 (1979) (MARSHALL, dissenting). 7 * A few about must briefly stated order place proper context. was originally tried capital spring 1977. Although found guilty murder, mistrial declared unable agree during sentencing trial. 699, 706 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). second fall 1977, again murder. answered requisite questions affirmative, therefore assessed death.1 8 initially reversed judgment court. App. Pet. Cert., Exhibit Atlantic concluded it error deny appointment psychologist examine purpose testifying concerning probability would commit future criminal acts violence.2 On State's rehearing, opinion withdrawn court sentence. defense had made too late. 9 central raised concerns use stage case.3 Prior trial, Dr. Bill W. Henry, psychiatrist, mental competency stand Henry two written reports court, based interviews concluding competent Counsel apparently either interview. Cf. id., 705. No guilt trials. 10 At each permitted call expert witness. examined violence constitute continuing threat society. That is, course, one statutorily required presented case; if finds beyond reasonable doubt violent crime exists, addition other mandated findings, then imposed.4 Based pretrial examinations supposedly limited legally testified "person suffering antisocial personality," 706, probably future. II 11 become clear scenario just described constitutes customary authorities cases. This means time examination allegedly sought ascertain defendant's used punishment-stage court-appointed psychiatrist personality likely crimes. reflecting official are legion. See, e. g., Wilder State, 583 349 (1979), cert. pending, 79-5002; Armour 79-5007; Bell 582 800 pending 79-5199; Garcia 581 168 79-5464; Woods 569 901 (1978), 79-721; Livingston 542 655 (1976), denied, 431 933, 2642, 53 250 (1979); Gholson 395 432 911, 2960, 1084 (1977); 540 693 430 922, 1341, 51 601 (1977), vacated, F.Supp. 647 (N.D.Tex.1977), aff'd, (CA5 1979), granted, (1980); Hurd 513 936 (1974); Armstrong 502 731 (1973). establish sanction Appeals. supra; supra. 12 practice Sixth Amendments applicable through Due Process Clause Amendment. aff'g (N.D.Tex.1977). "a compelled speak who can statements him trial," F.2d, 708, warned right remain silent, indicates wishes silent questioned dangerousness, ibid.5 also submit "is vitally important decision, literally life matter," ibid. critical prosecution, entitled assistance Id., 708-709. 13 Because seriousness issues conflict between Circuit, Should federal imposed instant reconsidered because crucial obtained. 14 certiorari, thereby steps put Texas.6 appears intend prosecute challenge sentence;7 asks "so [death] carried out." Motion Dismiss 2. effect seeks waive execution,8 constitutionality die presently before judgment, waiver. U.S., 810, S.Ct., 30 dissenting); 1019, 440, 15 Gilmore, WHITE, joined myself, asserted privilege otherwise Amendment." 1018, 439 (dissenting opinion). separate dissenting opinion, expressed protects rights individuals victims cruel unusual punishment, but expresses fundamental interest society ensuring state authority administer barbaric punishments." 440 "Society powerless . resist effort prompt exercise force," supra, 812, 31 "state-administered 33. 16 These observations force here imposition these Brethren violate rather Indeed, views added employed successfully challenged constitutional grounds convince (WHITE, 807 811-812, n.3, 17 If agrees reconsidered. accept Court's run risk constitutionally prohibited from taking. 18 BLACKMUN, 19 grant se summarily, set plenary upon briefs arguments submitted State. 1020, By statute decide three questions: "(1) caused deceased committed deliberately expectation another result; "(2) society; "(3) evidence, killing unreasonable provocation, any, deceased." Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Article 37.071(b) (Vernon Supp. 1979). An affirmative answer unanimous, affirmatively "shall" imposed. Arts. 37.071(d)(1) (e) reasoned: "Those face accusation being peculiarly unique charge ominous consequences. jurisdiction those behavioral sciences frequently resorted consistently approved use, often basing sufficiency evidence support death-producing evidence. Given role come play, character issue, extreme consequences rest resolution tremendous diversity opinions matters within field experts qualify give denied accused persons facing possibility death, witnesses necessities, luxuries." A, Pages 3-4. 720-721 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) (Odom, argued, inter alia, erred allowing [defendant] respect testify trial." argument certiorari. Certiorari 6-7: "[T]he surrounding presentation Henry's grossly unfair thus process law," citing 14-16, 17-18. n. 1, want cooperate S.W.2d, 705; Brief Opposition 4. alleges participate terminated interview chose continue. Ibid. Even necessarily mean complies requirements discussed and, when reviews conclude took overly narrow requirements. affirms (1980), very least obtained information derived closely scrutinized see satisfied demands. According Texas, dismissed Court, mandate formally date days sentencing. Response 3. 43.14 states "I longer appeal (or challenge) 1. He "to aside questionable fully understands what seeking waive. papers "moves dismiss Appal [sic] Habeas Corpus Application," appear know appeal, habeas corpus application. certainly possible reached without understanding our

Classification Label: 0