Court Opinion

ID: 9492443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:41:22.569239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:18.492166
License: Public Domain

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment of the court. The majority opinion covers adequately all but one of the arguments raised by Mr. Sanchez. I write separately to address the argument that my colleagues do not address. This is a death case, and I believe it is especially important that we state our views as comprehensively as possible. Our obligation to the litigants requires that we do; our obligation to the Supreme Court requires that we do.
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975), makes clear that state courts have a continuing obligation to address, throughout the state proceedings, whether the defendant was competent at the time of trial. In this case, additional evidence as to whether Mr. Sanchez was competent at the time of sentencing came to light after trial. Mr. Sanchez now contends that the state courts did not fulfill their responsibility under Drope to evaluate properly the evidence that came to light during the post-conviction review. He contends that this evidence, when evaluated in light of the situation that arose at trial just prior to the penalty phase, raises a substantial question about his competency to participate in the proceedings at that time. As we did in Tenner v. Gilmore, 184 F.3d 608 (7th Cir.1999), we therefore must decide whether the state courts adequately addressed the issue of this new evidence during the post-conviction review proceedings. My review of the record and of the decisions of the state courts on postconviction review convinces me that the state courts’ assessment of the new evidence was in conformity with the constitutional principles set out by the Supreme Court of the United States. On habeas review, this court must accept the state courts’ well-founded conclusions. Therefore, I must conclude that the district court properly denied the writ of habeas corpus and its judgment ought to be affirmed.