Court Opinion

ID: 9429226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:26:04.561715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:17.986315
License: Public Domain

Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The Court is simply wrong in assuming that 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d) applies to the question whether there is “a sufficient doubt of [the defendant’s] competence to stand trial to require further inquiry on the question.” Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162, 180 (1975). Our decisions clearly establish that whether a competence hearing should have been held is a mixed question of law and fact which is subject to full federal review. Id., at 174-175, 179-181; Pate v. Robinson, 883 U. S. 375, 385-386 (1966).
Even if the Court were correct in assuming that 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(8) applies, there would be no justification for the Court’s summary disposition of this case. This Court’s Rules *121governing petitions for certiorari were designed to help elicit the information necessary to decide whether review by cer-tiorari is warranted. They were not designed to permit a decision on the merits on the basis of the certiorari papers.
In particular, Rule 22.2 states that “a brief in opposition shall be as short as possible.” In compliance with this Rule the indigent respondent filed a mimeographed brief in opposition of seven pages, a substantial portion of which is devoted to the argument that the petition presents no question worthy of review by this Court — an argument that might well have been expected to prevail given the traditional learning that this Court “is not, and never has been, primarily concerned with the correction of errors in lower court decisions.”1 Only a few paragraphs of the brief in opposition discuss the record.2
If the Court is to decide whether the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that no competence hearing was necessary, it should at least afford the parties a chance to brief that issue. This could be done by merely issuing an order (1) noting that the case will be disposed of without oral argument and (2) permitting both sides to file briefs on the merits. I do not think this is asking too much.

 Address by Chief Justice Vinson Before American Bar Association, Sept. 7, 1949, 69 S. Ct. v, vi (1949).

 With the full resources of a sovereign State, petitioner filed a printed petition for certiorari plus a full printed appendix. Petitioner’s papers were signed by the State Attorney General, the District Attorney, and two Assistant District Attorneys.