Court Opinion

ID: 9709147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:41:19.666536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:46.384715
License: Public Domain

*5SHEPARD, Chief
Justice, dissenting.
I think the majority's remand of this case is very unlikely to generate any information that will be useful. As I understand it, the trial court is being directed to appoint two psychiatrists whose job will be to examine the defendant in 1989 to determine his competency for a trial held in 1975. In light of the apparent lack of reliable information about whether he was on medication at the time of trial, I do not see how much can be said fourteen years later about defendant's condition at the time. Hammer could have raised this question on direct appeal and he could have raised it in his first post-conviction proceeding. The trial court in this second post-conviction proceeding found laches, and I would affirm its judgment.