Beck v. State, F-79-486
| Decision Date | 17 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. F-79-486,F-79-486 |
| Citation | 626 P.2d 327 |
| Parties | Herman BECK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Herman Beck was charged in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CRF-77-2815, with Robbery with Firearms in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1973, § 801. A trial resulted in a hung jury. The case was subsequently submitted to the judge on the basis of the preliminary hearing and trial transcripts, the appellant having waived his right to a trial by jury. The court found the appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to fifteen (15) years' imprisonment.
The appellant first alleges two assignments of error at his first trial which was declared a mistrial. Because no judgment resulted, the appellant has no right to an appeal from his first trial. (22 O.S.1971, § 1051) We are concerned only with alleged error at the appellant's second trial which resulted in a conviction and sentence of fifteen (15) years.
It is first argued the court erred by refusing to impanel a jury to evaluate the appellant's present state of sanity immediately prior to trial and again when the conviction was brought up for judgment. The statute upon which the appellant relies, 22 O.S.1971, § 1162, requires that a jury be impaneled when an information is called for trial or when the defendant is sentenced if "a doubt arises" as to the defendant's present sanity. Recent case law has established that the doubt referred to in the statute must arise in the mind of the trial judge after an evaluation of the facts, source of the information and motive. This finding of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. See Reynolds v. State, 575 P.2d 628 (Okl.Cr.1978).
In the present case, a hearing was conducted before the first trial at which both the appellant and Dr. Garcia, a psychiatrist who had periodically evaluated the appellant since 1974, testified the appellant was sane and could aid in his own defense. The trial court had ample opportunity to observe and evaluate the appellant's condition, both during his first trial and prior to sentencing. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court, and therefore, hold that this contention is without merit.
The appellant next asserts that his heavy medication rendered him incompetent to waive his right to a jury trial and to stand trial. He further argues that because he was incompetent for these purposes, his right of due process of law guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. I, § 7 and Art. II, § 20, was denied.
The test used to determine whether one accused is competent to stand trial, is whether the accused has sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer and has a rational as well as actual understanding of the proceedings against him. Roberson v. State, 456 P.2d 595 (Okl.Cr.1969). In order for the waiver of a jury trial to be valid, the trial judge should make inquiry of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. State, F-92-533
...issue of competency only if he demands it. Scott v. State, 730 P.2d 7 (Okl.Cr.1986). Appellant's cases are inapplicable. Beck v. State, 626 P.2d 327, 328 (Okl.Cr.1981), concerns itself with section 1162 of Title 22, dealing with sanity, not competency. Hayes v. State, 541 P.2d 210, 212 (Okl......
-
Grant v. State
...court's decision whether sufficient doubt exists about a defendant's ability to proceed is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Beck v. State, 1981 OK CR 30, ¶ 3, 626 P.2d 327, 328. The trial court may consider the defendant's behavior, his demeanor at trial, and of course any expert eviden......
-
Dutton v. State, F-79-337
...and motive. The trial judge's finding is not disturbed on appeal absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion. Beck v. State, 626 P.2d 327, 328 (Okl.Cr.1981). In the present case, the trial judge made a determination that appellant was competent to stand trial based upon his own observatio......
-
Ake v. State
...medication rendered him unable to understand the proceedings against him and affected his ability to assist counsel. Beck v. State, 626 P.2d 327 (Okl.Cr.1981). Dr. Garcia testified that he had diagnosed the appellant's condition as schizophrenia of the paranoid type, which necessitated main......