Court Opinion

ID: 9443889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:33:21.311881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:38.295139
License: Public Domain

MURRAH, Circuit Judge,
(dissenting).
Having in mind the duties imposed upon the trial judge in cases of this kind, I have a conviction that the. trial court fell far short of his duty. In coming to this conclusion, I do not find it necessary to decide the question whether the petitioner was technically sane at the time he entered his plea of guilty. In my judgment, the question whether he understood the charge against him and all of his constitutional rights with respect thereto, is not resolved by merely determining whether he was sane or insane. It is determinable upon the broader issue of whether the trial court fulfilled his duty to make sure that he understood the nature of the charge and all of his constitutional rights, and waived them with that full understanding.
The trial court had actual knowledge from the probation report before it that the applicant was emotionally unstable and had been suffering from a mental infirmity. This alone was sufficient to give warning to the court of an unusual situation requiring special attention. In these circumstances, the duty of the court to vouchsafe the constitutional rights of the accused is not discharged by “yes” and “no” answers to formal questions. See Snell v. United States, 10 Cir., 174 F.2d 580.
I would vacate the judgment and remand the petitioner for further plea.