Ex parte Winfrey, 61452
| Decision Date | 06 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 61452,61452 |
| Citation | 581 S.W.2d 698 |
| Parties | Ex parte Robert Charles WINFREY. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus. The convicting court has made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
"FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Petitioner 1 was convicted upon his plea of not guilty to the felony offense of murder (with malice) and was sentenced to Life in the Texas Department of Corrections.
3. Prior to trial, a hearing was held to determine whether Petitioner was competent to stand trial.
4. At the conclusion of the competency hearing the jury was given the following instructions to determine Petitioner's competency:
By 'insane' or 'insanity' is meant inability at this time by the Defendant to understand the difference between right and wrong and inability in mind to understand and appreciate the nature of the act charged against him in the indictment and the consequences thereof, and inability of the defendant in mind to make a rational defense concerning said act or offense.
Now if you believe from a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant at this time is in such mental condition that he does not know right from wrong and the nature and consequences of his act, and that he is unable to advise and assist his attorney in preparing a rational defense to the offense with which he is charged, you will find him insane at the present time, and so state in your verdict.
5. That pursuant to the foregoing charge, the jury found that the Petitioner was presently sane or competent to stand trial.
1. The charge to the jury was fundamentally erroneous inasmuch as it presented an improper standard for determining Petitioner's competency.
2. The charge to the jury was fundamentally erroneous because it encompassed a M'Naughton standard for determining Petitioner's competence to stand trial. Whether Petitioner knew the difference between right and wrong and whether he understood and appreciated the nature of the act charged against him had no relevance to the issue of whether Petitioner was competent to stand trial.
3. The charge to the jury was fundamentally erroneous in that it totally omitted the proper standard to determine Petitioner's competency. The proper standard for a competency determination is (1) whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and (2) whether the defendant has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.
4. The charge to the jury is identical 2 to that in Ex parte Long, 564 S.W.2d 760 (Tex.Crim.App.1978), wherein relief was granted on an application for habeas corpus."
These findings of fact and conclusions of law are correct.
If the petitioner was incompetent when he was tried for murder with malice, he has been deprived of liberty without due process 3 and due course of law. 4 Ex parte Long, 564 S.W.2d 760 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Ex parte Hagens, 558 S.W.2d 457 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). If he was not incompetent, he was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkins v. State
... ... Reputation testimony is probative as to future acts of violence. Ex Parte Alexander, 608 S.W.2d 928. Finally, prior criminal convictions are probative of a defendant's ... State, 599 S.W.2d 567, Caballero v. State, 587 S.W.2d 741, and Ex Parte Winfrey, 581 S.W.2d 698, this cause is remanded for further proceedings. Those proceedings should ... ...
-
Turner v. State
...competency hearing and, if it is, to hold such a hearing” under the then-extant competency-to-stand-trial statute); Ex parte Winfrey, 581 S.W.2d 698, 699 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (holding that the original competency hearing suffered from a flawed jury instruction, this Court remanded to the tri......
-
Turner v. State
... ... Pretrial Proceedings The first pretrial hearing on record was an ex parte conference that took place in chambers on June 23, 2010. By this time the trial court had ... to hold such a hearing" under the then-extant competency-to-stand-trial statute); Ex parte Winfrey, 581 S.W.2d 698, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (holding that the original competency hearing suffered ... ...
-
Huff v. State
...Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Caballero v. State, 587 S.W.2d 741 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Ex parte Winfrey, 581 S.W.2d 698 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). In Brandon we abated the cause for a retrospective competency trial and stated that "a record of that proceeding should be prepared i......