Court Opinion

ID: 9789693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:40:07.257484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:07.618075
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
Charles Enoch Brown was convicted of First Degree Murder in Creek County District Court, Case No. CRF-83-288, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgment and sentence was affirmed on direct appeal, and he has petitioned this Court for rehearing.
In his petition for rehearing, petitioner urges that recent decisions by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals mandate that the trial court committed reversible error in denying the petitioner’s request for funds to hire an independent private psychiatrist to assist in his defense. Petitioner primarily relies upon United States v. Crews, 781 F.2d 826 (10th Cir.1986), which relied upon United States v. Sloan, 776 F.2d 926 (10th Cir.1985). We find that these cases are not applicable here, because our review of the record convinces us that,, when the defendant presented his motion to the trial court, he failed to make an ex parte threshold *140showing to the trial court that his sanity was likely to be a significant factor in his defense as required by Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). It is only “when a defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, [that] the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.” Id. at 83, 105 S.Ct. at 1097. We cannot say that the bald assertions which appear in the motion for funds for a psychiatrist (O.R. 103-04), and argued to the trial court prior to trial (Tr. 5-6), were sufficient to undergird the allegations with evidentiary support and particularized facts showing that the petitioner’s sanity at the time of the offense was seriously in question. See Cartwright v. Maynard, 802 F.2d 1203, 1211-12 (10th Cir.1986). Accordingly, we find that the petition for rehearing shall be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.