Court Opinion

ID: 9476044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:46:36.244401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:06.361820
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before GODBOLD, VANCE and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Respondent-appellee Richard L. Dugger has filed a petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc of this court’s April 2, 1987 opinion in the above-captioned case. In point I of the petition, the appellee contends that we erred in remanding the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner-appellant’s competency to stand trial because our decision to remand was predicated on a mistaken belief that the transcript from a state court competency hearing was not filed with the district court prior to its rejection of Bundy’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1
*569Upon further review of the record in this case, we acknowledge that the transcript from the state court competency hearing was indeed filed with the district court prior to its rejection of Bundy’s petition and that we were mistaken in believing otherwise. The transcript was not filed with the rest of the state court record on November 4, 1986, but was attached as an exhibit to the state’s response to Bundy’s Rule 3.850 motion. All of the papers relating to Bundy’s Rule 3.850 proceedings were filed on November 17, 1986, the same day that the district court ruled on Bundy’s habeas petition.
That error notwithstanding, however, we conclude that there remains sufficient evidence in the record to require the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on Bundy’s competency to stand trial. While the addition of the evidence in the state competency proceeding possibly makes this a closer question, our review of the entire record still convinces us that the district court erred in concluding that Bundy was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his competency claim.
Accordingly, Dugger’s petition for rehearing is DENIED.

. In addition to the contention discussed above, the state also argues that we erred in remanding this case for an evidentiary hearing because we "misapprehended or overlooked” the legal significance of Bundy’s purported waiver of his right to raise a claim of incompetence. We reject this contention and adhere to the portion of our April 2, 1987 opinion addressing the issue of waiver.