Griffin v. State, CA
| Decision Date | 24 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 25 Ark.App. 186,755 S.W.2d 574 |
| Parties | Wesley GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. CR 88-20. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Daniel D. Becker, Hot Springs, for appellant.
Joseph V. Svoboda Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
This appeal comes to us from Garland County Circuit Court. Appellant, Wesley Griffin, appeals his conviction of interference with a law enforcement officer with the use of a firearm, a violation of Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-54-104 (1987) (formerly Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-2804 (Repl.1977)), and the sentence imposed therefor. We affirm.
An information was filed June 11, 1987, charging appellant with interference with a law enforcement officer and criminal trespass in that he did unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly employ and use deadly physical force against a law enforcement officer employing a firearm in furtherance of said felony. Further, the information changed that appellant did unlawfully and purposely enter the premises of another person against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas. Prior to trial, the State nolle prossed the criminal trespass charge.
Before arraignment, appellant filed a notice putting into issue his fitness to proceed and that he would rely on the defense of mental disease or defect. On the same day, appellant filed a motion requesting a court-ordered mental examination at the state hospital.
A hearing was held on appellant's motion, and the court ordered that appellant undergo a preliminary evaluation at the Ouachita Regional Mental Health Center due to the extended delay required for admission to the state hospital. In the court's examination order, the center was directed to make a written report and findings in accordance with Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-2-305(d) (Supp.1987) (formerly Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-605(4) (Repl.1977)). After examination and in response, the center wrote a letter stating that they were "unable to come up with a consensus" in answering the questions posed and recommended a complete evaluation at Rogers Hall.
At the arraignment on August 6, 1987, the court directed that appellant be examined at the state hospital because of the health center's recommendation. Following an exchange of inquiries and responses with appellant, the court allowed appellant to withdraw his defense of mental defect and set a hearing date for the trial.
On September 2, 1987, a pre-trial hearing was conducted in chambers on the morning of trial to determine if appellant was mentally capable to withdraw his incompetency defense and for consideration of another matter not pertinent to this appeal. After finding appellant competent to withdraw his defense, the trial ensued. Appellant was found guilty as charged by the jury and sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment.
Lack of mental capacity is an affirmative defense. Ark.Code Ann § 5-2-312 (1987) (formerly Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-601 (Repl.1977)). Affirmative defenses can be withdrawn; however, the inherent nature of the mental defect defense, once asserted, requires the court to examine closely a defendant's ability to take his competency out of issue. Although appellant argues the trial court erred in finding him fit to proceed and continuing with trial, we must first determine whether the court erred in allowing appellant to withdraw his affirmative defense of mental disease or defect. This presented a question of fact for the trial court and it is well settled that findings of fact by a trial judge will not be set aside by this court unless clearly erroneous. Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Inc. v. Fudge, 12 Ark.App. 11, 669 S.W.2d 914 (1984). Thus, on appeal our inquiry is whether the court was clearly erroneous in allowing the withdrawal of the incompetency defense and proceeding to trial. The record supports the fact that the court did not err in this regard.
At the arraignment in the case at bar, the court generally acknowledged that the case could not proceed to trial on the basis of the health center's letter and for that reason directed that appellant be taken to Rogers Hall for a complete mental evaluation. At that time, appellant expressed his wish to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffin v. Lockhart
...by the court to ten years in prison. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed Griffin's conviction on direct appeal. Griffin v. State, 25 Ark.App. 186, 755 S.W.2d 574 (1988). Griffin filed a petition in federal court seeking habeas relief pursuant to section 2254. The district court, against ......
-
Randleman v. State
...it has reason to doubt a defendant's fitness to proceed. See, Hudson v. State, 303 Ark. 637, 799 S.W.2d 529 (1990); Griffin v. State, 25 Ark.App. 186, 755 S.W.2d 574 (1988). The appellant's argument is based on the fact that she did not raise a competency defense and her mental fitness was ......
-
HARRIS v. State of Ark.
...was fit to proceed and to assist in his own defense, and Harris testified on his own behalf during his trial. See Griffin v. State, 25 Ark. App. 186, 755 S.W.2d 574 (1988) (holding that appellant who testified at trial failed to demonstrate prejudice from the trial court's determination tha......