U.S. ex rel. Mireles v. Greer

• Decision Date: 21 June 1984
• Docket Number: Nos. 83-1850,83-2051,s. 83-1850
• Citation: 736 F.2d 1160
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Jose MIRELES, Petitioner-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. James GREER, Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 1160

736 F.2d 1160

UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Jose MIRELES Petitioner-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. James GREER, Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 83-1850, 83-2051.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Feb. 6, 1984.

Decided June 12, 1984.

As Amended June 14 and June 21, 1984.

Thomas Needham, Law Student, Loyola University Law School, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner-appellee-cross-appellant.

Neal B. Goodfriend, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for respondent-appellant-cross-appellee.

Before PELL and ESCHBACH, Circuit Judges, and BARTELS, Senior District Judge. ^*

BARTELS, Senior District Judge.

Petitioner-Appellee Jose Mireles was convicted in the Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court, after a jury trial, of the murder of his girlfriend Marsha Keshick, and was sentenced to a term of 15 to 30 years. Thereafter he appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court where the judgment was affirmed. People v. Mireles, 79 Ill.App.3d 173, 34 Ill.Dec. 475, 398 N.E.2d 150 (1979). Leave to appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Illinois. People v. Mireles, No. 52946 (Sup.Ct.Ill. Mar. 27, 1980). A petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court. Mireles v. Illinois, 449 U.S. 860, 101 S.Ct. 163, 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980). Subsequently, petitioner filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted, United States ex rel. Mireles v. Greer, 528 F.Supp. 1122 (N.D.Ill.1981) (Bua, J.), the district court finding that the petitioner was denied due process because the state trial court failed to conduct a hearing to determine the competency of the petitioner to stand trial. A motion to reconsider was denied. United States ex rel. Mireles v. Greer, No. 81-C-4127 (N.D.Ill. April 22, 1983). Citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), and Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975), the district court stated, among other things, that:

the evidence of [Mireles'] irrational behavior immediately following the commission of the offense, the initial psychiatric reports concerning his competency, and his uninterrupted psychiatric care which continued up to the date of trial, provided substantial evidence of petitioner's incompetence to stand trial. In fact, the trial judge determined, over objection of counsel, that he entertained considerable doubt concerning petitioner's competency. The issue presented, an issue which was not addressed by the Illinois Appellate Court, is whether the court may resolve this doubt without conducting an evidentiary hearing. (United States ex rel. Mireles v. Greer, 528 F.Supp. at 1124.)

and, further, that the court would issue the writ of habeas corpus unless the state conducts a nunc pro tunc competency hearing or grants the petitioner a new trial within a reasonable time. After the respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied, this appeal followed, together with a cross appeal by the petitioner, claiming error in allowing the respondent the option of conducting a retrospective competency hearing. Because we reverse on the ground that the writ was improvidently granted, we need not address petitioner's cross appeal. Upon this appeal we are asked to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in determining that the state trial judge was required, sua sponte, to hold a hearing as to petitioner's competency to stand trial, once having expressed a doubt and fixed a date for such a hearing and thereafter changing his mind predicated upon subsequent reports.

Background

On March 30, 1975, Mireles, who had been living with his girlfriend, Marsha Keshick, for several months, learned that she was about to leave him for another man, whereupon he became angry, kicked the door in, and strangled Marsha with an electrical cord. Immediately thereafter petitioner attempted unsuccessfully to kill himself by touching an electrical rail in a subway station. Later that same day, he was arrested by the police and sent on the following day (March 31, 1975) to Cermak Memorial Hospital for Cook County. He remained at Cermak Hospital under the psychiatric care of Dr. Baker Howell, Chief Psychiatrist, throughout all the pretrial proceedings as well as the trial itself a year later.

Mireles was initially represented by the Cook County Public Defender, who moved that the court appoint a psychiatrist to examine the petitioner to determine his competence to stand trial, which motion was granted on April 11, 1975. Accordingly, Mireles was examined by Dr. H.P. Langner of the Psychiatric Institute of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Dr. Langner noted that Mireles was suffering from schizophrenia, latent type, that Mireles' contact was poor, that he was experiencing auditory hallucinations, and that he had made numerous previous suicide attempts. Dr. Langner concluded that Mireles was currently not competent to stand trial.

On July 10, 1975, Mireles privately retained Malcolm Young of the Criminal Defense Services, who thereupon filed his appearance on Mireles' behalf. At a hearing held on August 26, 1975, counsellor Young informed the court that a defense of insanity was contemplated, and after receiving a prior fitness report concerning Mireles he stated that he had no problem cooperating with his client and that there was no reason to make any further inquiry as to Mireles' competence to stand trial. In other words, he opposed a competency hearing. Nevertheless, the court, upon being informed of Mireles' considerable history of mental and emotional problems, ordered that Mireles be examined again by the Psychiatric Institute to determine his fitness to stand trial. Dr. Robert A. Reifman, Assistant Director of the Psychiatric Institute of Cook County, then examined Mireles on October 3, 1975 and filed his report with the court on October 7, 1975, concluding that "it is my opinion that this defendant is not mentally fit to stand trial." On the same date, permission was given for the defendant to privately retain Dr. Ilse Judas, a psychiatrist, to evaluate Mireles as to his competency to stand trial and his sanity at the time of the offense. The court set November 20, 1975, as the date for a competency hearing. In the meantime, Mireles was examined on November 12, 1975 by Dr. Judas, who made a report from which the following is an excerpt:

Specifically, he was able to tell me why I was here to examine him according to what I knew his lawyers had told him. In addition, he held up without disintegration to extensive investigation on my part into his personal history, his offense, and the nature and the functions of his lawyers, social worker, and his fitness hearing and trial.

I see no good purpose in continuing to postpone his trial. As a matter of fact there may be adverse consequences as he sits out his guilt and uncertainties. Under the circumstances of his present confinement, he is in as good shape as he is apt to be.

After this report was received by the court, Mireles' counsel, based upon his experience with Mireles, again expressed his opinion that a competency hearing was unnecessary and that the best interests of Mireles would be served by a speedy trial. In spite of this, the court continued the matter to January 21, 1976, for the purpose of holding a competency hearing.

However, on that date, pursuant to a court order, an additional or second report was filed by Dr. Reifman with the court in which he changed his former opinion and stated, among other things, "that this defendant is mentally fit to stand trial with medication." Based upon Dr. Judas' report and the revised opinion of Dr. Reifman, the court was satisfied as to Mireles' fitness to stand trial and found that a competency hearing was unnecessary, stating:

The competency hearing was scheduled on the basis that there was some bona fide indication that the defendant may not be competent to stand trial or fit to stand trial.

Your doctor, Dr. Junas (sic), who examined the defendant, indicated it was her opinion that the defendant was fit to stand trial.

Dr. Reifman, upon re-examination, has indicated that it was his opinion at the present time that the defendant is fit to stand trial with medication.

I'm sure that he's receiving that medication, so on that basis, there is no need to have a competency hearing.

When the case was called for trial, Mireles appeared before the trial judge who engaged in a colloquy with him and who then ruled that the competency hearing scheduled on his own motion was no longer necessary.

From March 17 to March 22, 1976, prior to the actual trial, the court heard arguments and testimony on the defendant's motion to suppress oral statements made by Mireles to the police, at which time Mireles contended that he did not have sufficient mental capacity or control to understand the Miranda warnings given him, or to knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. Dr. Baker Howell testified at that hearing to the effect that Mireles did not appear to understand the gravity of the situation. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress and the case proceeded to trial.

At the trial a number of witnesses took the stand including members of Mireles' family, testifying in support of Mireles' insanity defense. Mireles himself took the stand and asserted that he was insane at the time of the offense and related, among other things, his discharge from the Navy for bringing firearms aboard a fuel ship. Dr. Howell, Dr. Judas and Dr. Reifman also testified and gave somewhat conflicting testimony as to Mireles' insanity at the time of the killing and whose diagnoses, however, failed to establish that Mireles at the time of the offense was suffering from a mental disease or lacked the capacity to appreciate the criminality of his act or was unable to conform his conduct to...