Clanton v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-2637.,73-2637. |
| Parties | Marcus Junior CLANTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
John A. Chandler, Atlanta, Ga. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.
Robert L. Smith, J. Owen Forrester, Anthony M. Arnold, Asst. U. S. Attys., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
Before COLEMAN, AINSWORTH and GEE, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied February 25, 1974.
Appellant Marcus Junior Clanton brought this appeal from an unfavorable decision denying him relief under 28 U. S.C. § 2255. The sole issue is whether he was mentally competent when he entered pleas of guilty, then represented by counsel, and was sentenced on two charges of bank robbery.
The record shows that a psychologist, Dr. Boone, in a report dated January 12, 1972, found that Clanton was competent to stand trial. Clanton was also examined at the United States Penitentiary Hospital in Atlanta on January 18, 1972 by a psychiatrist, Dr. Mascort, who concluded that Clanton was not at that time mentally competent to stand trial. Several months thereafter, on April 11, 1972, Dr. Alderete, chief medical officer of the penitentiary and a psychiatrist, after examination of Clanton, concluded that he was then mentally competent to stand trial. At Clanton's request, he was examined by Dr. Brannon, a psychiatrist in Atlanta, whose report dated June 21, 1972 to the court held that Clanton was mentally competent to stand trial. Clanton pleaded guilty to the Atlanta bank robbery on July 10, 1972, and shortly thereafter, on August 3, 1972, pleaded guilty to the second bank robbery which had occurred in Miami, the case having been transferred to Atlanta under Rule 20, Fed.R.Crim.P.
Several weeks after sentence, on August 21, 1972, Dr. Alderete again examined Clanton and stated that he would have been competent to stand trial at that time.
The principal point relied upon by appellant on this appeal is that at the section 2255 evidentiary hearing the district court erroneously admitted testimony by Clanton's trial counsel concerning his client's mental competence, in violation of his attorney-client privilege. Clanton's trial attorney, M. C. Mykel, had been a state juvenile court probation officer and a social worker and had had extensive training with psychiatrists and psychologists. He testified that there was nothing to indicate that Clanton was incompetent or could not fully cooperate with him; also that he believed Clanton was mentally competent on July 10, 1972 and August 3, 1972, when he entered his guilty pleas which are the subject of the present petition, and that he would not have permitted his client to plead guilty knowing he was not mentally competent.
Appellant relies on Gunther v. United States, 1956, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 230 F.2d 222, where a judgment was reversed because an accused's attorney was allowed to express an opinion as to his client's competency and ability to assist in the defense. The Government argues that Gunther is distinguishable on its facts. Without deciding whether it is or not, we think the better view on the law is expressed by the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Kendrick, 1964, 331 F.2d 110, where that court held that an accused's attorney was properly permitted to testify as to his client's mental competency at the time of trial. Kendrick's attorney did not testify to any private communications between the client and attorney nor to the substance of such communications. His testimony was limited to nonconfidential matters, such as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Meeks
...See Darrow v. Gunn, 594 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. David, 511 F.2d 355, 360 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Clanton v. United States, 488 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Tom, 340 F.2d 127 (2nd Cir. 1965); Kendrick, 331 F.2d 110; Howell v. United States, 282 F.Supp. 246 (N.D. I......
-
Wilkins v. Secretary of Florida DOC
...showing that the Defendant was in fact competent to proceed. See also, Attachment 7. FN5 See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.212(a); Clanton v. U.S., 488 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir 1974). (Id. at 208). The First DCA affirmed without opinion. (Doc. 17-5, Ex. T). C. Section 2254 Review of State Court's Decision T......
-
Manning v. State
...444 U.S. 849, 100 S.Ct. 99, 62 L.Ed.2d 64 (1979); Malinauskas v. United States, 505 F.2d 649, 655 (5th Cir.1974); Clanton v. United States, 488 F.2d 1069, 1070-71 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 877, 95 S.Ct. 140, 42 L.Ed.2d 116 (1974); United States v. Tom, 340 F.2d 127, 128 (2d Cir.196......
-
State v. Meeks
...See, e.g., Darrow v. Gunn, 594 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. David, 511 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Clanton v. United States, 488 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1974); Howell v. United States, 442 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1971); United States v. Tom, 340 F.2d 127 (2d Cir. 1965); United States v.......
-
§ 38.05 COMMUNICATIONS DEFINED
...E.g., Darrow v. Gunn, 594 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. David, 511 F.2d 355, 360 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Clanton v. United States, 488 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Tom, 340 F.2d 127 (2d Cir. 1965); United States v. Kendrick, 331 F.2d 110 (4th Cir. 1964); Jones v. Distr......
-
§ 38.05 Communications Defined
...E.g., Darrow v. Gunn, 594 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. David, 511 F.2d 355, 360 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Clanton v. United States, 488 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Tom, 340 F.2d 127 (2d Cir. 1965).[45] See Gunther v. United States, 230 F.2d 222 (D.C. Cir. 1956) (any ex......