Westbrook v. Arizona

Citation86 S.Ct. 1320,16 L.Ed.2d 429,384 U.S. 150
Decision Date02 May 1966
Docket NumberM,No. 1250,1250
PartiesThomas A. WESTBROOK v. ARIZONA. isc
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

W. Edward Morgan, for petitioner.

Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen. of Arizona, and Paul G. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. Although petitioner received a hearing on the issue of his competence to stand trial, there appears to have been no hearing or inquiry into the issue of his competence to waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and proceed, as he did, to conduct his own defense. 'The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused—whose life or liberty is at stake—is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.' Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461; Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70.

From an independent examination of the record, we conclude that the question whether this 'protecting duty' was fulfilled should be re-examined in light of our decision this Term in Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent herewith. It is so ordered.

Judgment vacated and case remanded.

To continue reading

Request your trial
174 cases
  • People v. Burnett
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 27, 1987
    ...S.Ct. at p. 323; accord, Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461; Westbrook v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 150, 151, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429; see also, Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 385-386, 86 S.Ct. 836, 842, 15 L.Ed.2d 815.) With this princ......
  • Douglas v. United States
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • February 13, 1985
    ...the importance of the particular right surrendered and the gravity of the waiver decision. See Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966) (per curiam); Frendak v. United States, 408 A.2d 364, 379-80 20. There may be occasions when the trial court perceives a cl......
  • People v. Leever
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 29, 1985
    ... ... trial and competency to waive the constitutional right to counsel (i.e., whether the waiver was knowing and intelligent) are not identical (Westbrook v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429; People v. Clark (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 91, 94-95, 213 Cal.Rptr. 837; People v ... ...
  • State v. Lawson
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • October 7, 2021
    ...to understand the ramifications of the specific adverse-interest request he or she is making. See Westbrook v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 150, 150-151, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966).4 {¶ 226} Additionally, requiring that a record be developed when a defendant invokes an adverse-interest requ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Emotional competence, "rational understanding," and the criminal defendant.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 43 No. 4, September 2006
    • September 22, 2006
    ...and a 'reasoned choice' in this case"). (70.) Id. at 398-400. (71.) Id. at 400-02 (citing, inter alia, Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150 (1966) (per curiam), and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938)); see also Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (holding that the defendant has a r......
  • Criminal Law Newsletter
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 10-1, January 1981
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Eyman, 478 F.2d 211, 215, n. 27 (9th Cir. 1973). 5. United States v. David, 511 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966). 6. Malinauska v. United States, 505 F.2d 649, 655 (5th Cir. 1974). 7. Parks v. Denver District Court, Secon......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT