Griggs v. State, 56860

• Decision Date: 10 April 1972
• Docket Number: No. 56860,No. 2,56860,2
• Citation: Griggs v. State, 479 S.W.2d 478 (Mo. 1972)
• Parties: John Wayne GRIGGS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 478

479 S.W.2d 478

John Wayne GRIGGS, Movant-Appellant, v.STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56860.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

April 10, 1972 Motion for Rehearing or Transfer to Court en Banc Denied May 8, 1972.

William F. Brown, Sedalia, Court Appointed Attorney for movant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Wieler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

HENLEY, Judge.

This is an appeal by John Wayne Griggs(hereinafter movant) from an order overruling his motion to vacate a judgment sentencing him to imprisonment for twenty years upon his conviction of armed robbery.Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R.He appealed the armed robbery conviction and that judgment was affirmed in State v. Griggs, Mo., 445 S.W.2d 633(October, 1969).This appeal was pending in this court prior to January 1, 1972, and we retain jurisdiction to make final disposition of the case pursuant to paragraph 4, § 31, 1970amendment to Article V, Constitution of Missouri, V.A.M.S.We affirm.

Movant alleged in his motion and he contends on this appeal that the trial court in the armed robbery case failed to accord him a hearing '* * * to determine his competence to stand trial, where in fact there was 'substantial doubt' as to his ability to competently converse with his attorney or aid him with the defense.'He asserts that failure to accord him this hearing denied him a fair trial and due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.He cites and relies primarily upon Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815;Brizendine v. Swenson, 302 F.Supp. 1011;Goodwin v. Swenson, 287 F.Supp. 166.

At the hearing on the motion to vacate it was shown that by agreement between the parties a psychiatric examination of movant was ordered by the trial court.After the examination and before trial of the armed robbery case, doctors designated to make the examination made and filed a detailed report of their findings and, in accordance with § 552.020, para. 3, subparagraphs (3) and (4), stated their opinion (1) that movant had no mental disease or defect within the meaning of § 552.010;(2) that movant had the capacity to understand the proceedings against him and to assist in his own defense; and (3) that movant knew and appreciated the nature, quality and wrongfulness of his conduct and was able to conduct himself according to the requirements of the law.

Evidence at the hearing on the motion further shows that neither the state, the accused, nor his counsel questioned or contested the opinion of the doctors.Hence, there was no requirement under § 552.020, para. 6, that the court hold a hearing, unless the court determined on its own motion that a hearing was necessary.The court did not hold a hearing, apparently for the reason that there was nothing in movant's manner or demeanor to suggest that he was unable to understand the proceedings against him or incompetent to assist in his defense.Lane Harlan, principal counsel for defendant, testified that he saw no necessity for a hearing, that in his opinion movant was able to understand the nature of his act and its consequences, and that he understood the proceedings against him and was able to assist in his defense; that as a matter of fact, '* * * he was actually quite co-operative,' and responsive in discussions of the case; that he requested the mental examination of movant only because movant had suggested it; that he would not have made the request without the suggestion, because his observation of movant convinced him that he was competent and that a mental examination was not necessary.J. R. Fritz, also counsel for movant, testified, in substance, that his observation of movant was that he understood the proceedings against him, and that not only was he'* * * able to participate in his defense and make suggestions and discuss the case intelligently * * *, he did.'

Based on this evidence, the court found and concluded that movant was at the time of the trial of the robbery case capable of aiding and assisting in his defense and that he had no mental disease or defect which would exclude responsibility for the robbery.

In McCormick v. State, Mo., 463 S.W.2d 789, the court rejected the same contention made in this case, stating at l.c. 790: 'V.A.M.S. § 552.020 requires only that the trial court may hold a hearing on the issue of competency to stand trial on its own motion, and shall hold a hearing when the psychiatric report is contested.In our opinion, the provisions of § 552.020 do not conflict with the prevailing federal standards.'See also: Collins v. State, Mo., 479 S.W.2d 470(Division I opinion handed down April 10, 1972).The trial court complied with the requirements of ...