Crum v. State
| Decision Date | 19 September 1975 |
| Citation | 530 S.W.2d 103 |
| Parties | Bobby L. CRUM, Petitioner, v. STATE of Tennessee, Respondent. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Donald J. Boarman, Johnson City, for petitioner.
R. A. Ashley, Jr., Atty. Gen., Etrula R. Trotter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Lewis W. May, Dist. Atty. Gen., Mountain City, S. E. Widener, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Johnson City, for respondent.
OPINION
The question presented in this appeal is whether an indigent is denied constitutional process when the trial court disallows his subpoenaing a private expert witness to determine his mental competency to stand trial.
The trial court dismissed his petitions for post conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.
The petitioner is incarcerated as a result of entering guilty pleas to committing the offenses of violating the age of consent with punishment of confinement for not less than three nor more than ten years and for committing the offense of rape in two cases with resulting confinement of nine years. He was represented at his guilty pleas by the public defender who testified at the evidentiary hearing.
The evidence reflects that prior to petitioner's entering his pleas he had been examined at Central State and found not competent to stand trial. A jury was empaneled and petitioner was found to be presently insane. The petitioner was then committed under that directive to Central State and after a period of months he was certified by the doctors of that institution to be competent to stand trial.
On return to the Washington County Criminal Court after being fully advised by counsel of his options he elected to plead guilty.
We note the public defender, who testified at the hearing, was the moving force behind petitioner being committed to the hospital when on initial contact he found, upon conversing with petitioner, he was not oriented.
The public defender also testified that on petitioner's return after being found competent that petitioner could advise with him and was oriented. He further stressed that he had advised petitioner of all of his rights, and the full range of punishment that he could receive. He stated that the petitioner was advised that he could receive the lesser penalties on his pleading guilty and that petitioner had taken a couple of weeks to consider his options before entering the pleas. He acknowledged that his motion for the services of a private doctor was not renewed following petitioner's return after being found competent by the Central State Hospital doctors.
The trial court found that petitioner was not denied constitutional process in his not being allowed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. State
...the state was not required to appoint a psychiatrist to make a pre-trial examination of an indigent patient. See also Crum v. State, 530 S.W.2d 103 (Tenn.Cr.App.1975). Essentially this is a matter that addresses itself to the judgment and discretion of the legislature. Thus far it has not s......
-
Ellison v. State
...Reed v. Henderson, (6th Cir. 1967), 385 F.2d 995; Trolinger v. Russell, 1 Tenn.Cr.App. 525, 446 S.W.2d 538." See also, Crum v. State, 530 S.W.2d 103 (Tenn.Cr.App.1975); Parker v. State, 492 S.W.2d 456 (Tenn.Cr.App.1972); Ray v. State, 480 S.W.2d 919 The guilty plea waived all nonjurisdictio......
-
Patterson v. Hunt
...infirmities." Substantially the same is supported by Garret v. State, 534 S.W.2d 325 (Tenn.Crim.App.1975); Crum v. State, 530 S.W.2d 103 (Tenn.Crim.App.1975); Little v. State [4 Tenn.Cr.App. 175], 469 S.W.2d 537 (Tenn.Crim.App.1971); Shephard v. Henderson [1 Tenn.Cr.App. 694], 449 S.W.2d 72......
-
State v. Patty
...practitioner; there is no statutory sanction for the employment of a private psychiatrist at state expense. See also Crum v. State, 530 S.W.2d 103 (Tenn.Crim.App.1975); Collins v. State, 506 S.W.2d 179 The trial judge here correctly held that the state's application for further evaluation b......