Tarrants v. State, 45684
| Decision Date | 09 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 45684,45684 |
| Citation | 231 So.2d 493 |
| Parties | Thomas Albert TARRANTS, III v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Appellant, T. A. Tarrants, III, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County for the crime of planting a bomb in violation of Section 2143, Mississippi Code of 1942 Annotated (1956) and he perfected an appeal to this Court. His principal defense in the trial court was that he was insane at the time the offense is alleged to have been committed. After his appeal reached this Court and had been submitted and while under consideration by us, appellant filed a motion requesting that his appeal be dismissed and he also stated that he did not desire to appeal his case. He further stated that his attorneys of record no longer represented him in any matter. After this motion was filed we called upon his counsel of record for a response to the motion. They responded by stating that the record shows that a medical doctor, with special training in the field of psychiatry, testified in the trial court that appellant is both legally and medically insane and that this Court should not consider his motion to dismiss his appeal.
This factual situation is an unusual one and is one of first impression. Under ordinary circumstances, it is elemental that an appellant, if mentally competent, has a right to discharge his attorneys and represent himself in this Court and to have his appeal dismissed if he so desires. However, since the record does reveal that there is a question of whether appellant is mentally competent to represent himself, this factual question should be determined by us before passing on his motion.
Mississippi Supreme Court Rule 37(b) provides as follows:
(b) In the event this Court so directs, the trial court or trial judge in vacation may determine all issues of fact which may arise out of any appeal submitted to the trial court or judge for its or his determination, and which may be necessary for the disposition of cases on appeal to the Supreme Court, in accordance with the authority vested in this Court by Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 1960 (1956). Such hearing shall be conducted in the manner set out in subsection (a) above.
We are of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neal v. State
...be competent at all stages of the criminal process, "whether trial, Gammage v. State, 510 So.2d 802 (Miss.1987); appeal, Tarrants v. State, 231 So.2d 493 (Miss.1970); post-conviction, Rumbaugh v. Procunier, 753 F.2d 395 (5th Cir.1985); or at the point of execution, Billiot v. State, 478 So.......
-
Grim v. State, 2008–CT–01920–SCT.
...an appellant, if mentally competent, has a right to discharge his attorneys and represent himself in this Court....” Tarrants v. State, 231 So.2d 493, 493 (Miss.1970). ¶ 5. Because a criminal defendant has a state constitutional right to self-representation on appeal, upon learning that a d......
-
Grim v. State
...appellant, if mentally competent, has a right to discharge his attorneys and represent himself in this Court . . . ." Tarrants v. State, 231 So. 2d 493, 493 (Miss. 1970).¶5. Because a criminal defendant has a state constitutional right to self-representation on appeal, upon learning that a ......
-
Powers v. State
... ... criminal process, 'whether trial, Gammage v ... State, 510 So.2d 802 (Miss. 1987); appeal, Tarrants ... v. State, 231 So.2d 493 (Miss. 1970); post-conviction, ... Rumbaugh v. Procunier, 753 F.2d 395 (5th Cir. 1985); ... or at the ... ...