Harkins v. State
| Decision Date | 09 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 57158,57158,1 |
| Citation | 494 S.W.2d 7 |
| Parties | Gary Wayne HARKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Arthur A. Benson II, Kansas City, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Gene E. Voigts, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
HIGGINS, Commissioner.
Appeal (taken prior to January 1, 1972) from denial, after evidentiary hearing, of motion under Rule 27.26 to vacate and set aside judgment of conviction entered upon plea of guilty to charge of robbery, first degree, by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon.
On November 2, 1968, information was filed in the Circuit Court of Stoddard County, Missouri, charging Gary Wayne Harkins, his wife Lorine, his brother-in-law Fred Leon Kimble, and Kimble's girl friend Del Swafford, with robbery, first degree, by means of dangerous and deadly weapons, of the Puxico State Bank, on September 3, 1968. On November 4, 1968, Gary Wayne Harkins, in person, in open court, with counsel of his own choosing, J. Martin Hadican, waived formal arraignment, pleaded not guilty, and his case was set for trial December 3, 1968. Mr. Hadican represented his client in all proceedings through allocution and sentence.
On November 30, 1968, all defendants moved for a continuance of the December 3 trial setting, and the State moved for leave to file an amended information charging Gary Wayne Harkins with four prior felony convictions and the armed robbery of the Puxico State Bank.
On December 19, 1968, all defendants moved to disqualify the Honorable William H. Billings, Judge of the Stoddard County Circuit Court, which motion was sustained, and the Honorable Rex A. Henson, Judge of the 36th Judicial Circuit was designated as special judge.
On February 10, 1969, Judge Henson granted Gary Wayne Harkins severance, accorded him a change of venue to the Circuit Court of Butler County in the 36th Judicial Circuit, and set the case for trial March 28, 1969.
On March 25, 1969, the State filed waiver of the death penalty upon trial of Gary Wayne Harkins; and, on March 26, 1969, defendant filed motion to dismiss the amended information alleging it did not state on offense, and motions to elect and to suppress.
On March 28, 1969, the case came on for trial; the court overruled defendant's motions to dismiss and suppress, and determined that his motion to elect had been satisfied by agreement between the parties. Defendant, by counsel, then sought leave The motion was denied by the court, 'No good cause being shown.'
Defendant, by counsel, then announced that in view of the denial of the motion to change the plea, 'we would like to alter our original plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty to the charge of robbery by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon as * * * stated in the Amended Information * * *.' The court then read the complete charge to the defendant, ascertained that he understood it and that he had no question about it, and then asked how he pleaded, to which defendant answered 'Guilty.' The prosecuting attorney, upon request of the court, related the facts of the case to prove the charge, and recommended punishment at 25 years' imprisonment. Mr. Hadican then stated: The court then gave defendant additional opportunity to comment on the statements of the prosecuting attorney and Mr. Hadican, and he said nothing other than to confirm them. Allocution was then granted and with neither defendant nor counsel presenting any reason why sentence should not be pronounced, the court assessed defendant's punishment at 25 years' imprisonment and rendered sentence and judgment accordingly.
On February 6 or 9, 1970, Gary Wayne Harkins filed his motion to vacate sentence and to withdraw plea of guilty. He recited much of the above history and in some fifteen paragraphs related his basis for relief, the substance of which was a contention that he was denied due process of law in that he was denied a hearing on his competency to stand trial. The motion was filed pro se although prepared for him by the Legal Assistance to Inmates Clinic of the University of Missouri, Kansas City School of Law, 'with my consent.' On February 10, 1970, the court directed the court reporter to prepare a transcript of the proceedings of March 28, 1969, and forward it to Mr. Gary Eldredge, a student member of the Clinic.
On April 4, 1970, J. Martin Hadican filed his affidavit in support of the motion reciting his recollection of the proceedings of March 26, 1969; and, on April 6, 1970, the cause was passed at Mr. Hadican's request 'to permit filing of additional Motion or Pleadings.'
On August 1, 1970, Gary Wayne Harkins filed his 'Supplemental Motion' using the form prescribed for motions under Rule 27.26. His statement of all known grounds for relief and of his proof was by reference to the fifteen paragraphs, '2 through 16,' of the motion of February 6, 1970.
On August 20, 1970, Robert Popper, Director of the 'Inmates Clinic,' filed affidavit in support of the motion of February 6, 1970, stating his understanding of the history of the case and the mental history of Gary Wayne Harkins, and attached a transcript of proceedings of August 1, 1969, before the Honorable Robert M. McRae, Jr., Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee. The proceedings were in connection with a charge of bank robbery against Gary Wayne Harkins pending in that court and related to an application for mental examination filed in behalf of defendant by J. Martin Hadican, his attorney. The transcript contained testimony of Dr. Kenneth Munden, a psychiatrist; the court's finding that 'Defendant is at the time insane, or otherwise so mentally incompetent as to not be able to understand the charges against him, or otherwise properly assist in his defense'; and the judgment 'that he be placed in the custody of the Attorney General for appropriate confinement and treatment until such times as he is competent enough to stand trial or this charge is otherwise disposed of.' Elsewhere in the record it appears that the attorney general caused Gary Wayne Harkins to be placed in the Federal Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri.
On September 23, 1970, Frank Hearne of the Butler County Bar was appointed counsel for movant and, at some undisclosed time, Ted M. Henson, Jr., of the Butler County Bar also became counsel for movant. Both attorneys were present with movant at the hearing February 23, 1971.
A transcript of the plea proceedings of March 28, 1969, and of the foregoing record (Exhibit A) was received in evidence, as was a deposition of Dr. Kenneth James Munden taken in Memphis, Tennessee, February 12, 1971 (Exhibit B), and the records of State Hospital No. 1, at Fulton, Missouri, pertaining to Gary Wayne Harkins (Exhibit C).
Dr. Munden of the Tennessee Psychiatric Hospital and Institute examined Gary Wayne Harkins June 24, 1969, and October 17, 1970. On both occasions the patient was examined at the hospital-institute and returned to jail the same day. The first interview was for approximately seventy minutes; the second for approximately forty-five minutes. Dr. Munden also had the records of Fulton State Hospital No. 1 and the Federal Medical Center, as well as results of clinical tests administered by other institute personnel.
Dr. Munden stated that the patient was 'insane and not competent,' identifying the illness as paranoid schizophrenia. There was a 'strong likelihood' the condition he determined on the dates of his examination was the same on March 28, 1969. The patient would have an understanding of the charge against him and not understand his personal responsibility for his act. The patient was described as an intelligent man, able to assist in his defense up to a point. The patient's judgment was poor and his guilty plea was an example of that poor judgment. A person suffering from defendant's mental illness still can understand the nature of the charge and can communicate with and assist counsel.
Dr. Munden's testimony of August 1, 1969, in the federal court resulted from his examination...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harkins v. Lauf
...very existence of that right to proceed that is the traditional reason and basis for the rule of comity. I dissent. 1 See Harkins v. State, 494 S.W.2d 7 (Mo.1973), wherein this court affirmed the trial court's denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of appellant's petition to withdraw his gui......
-
State ex rel. Koster v. Oxenhandler
...against the accused. Section 552.020.11(6); see Ex Parte Kent, 490 S.W.2d at 651–53.35 The Missouri Supreme Court held in Harkins v. State, 494 S.W.2d 7, 14 (Mo.1973) that Pate requires a trial judge “to resolve a pretrial question of competence ... ‘where the evidence raises a “bona fide d......
-
Harkins v. Wyrick
...of this hearing, that appellant had been competent to stand trial on March 28, 1969. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. Harkins v. State, 494 S.W.2d 7 (Mo.1973). Appellant then filed a second Rule 27.26 motion, claiming that Hadican, his state trial counsel, had been incompetent in failin......
-
State v. Mayfield, 38313
...doubt" of an accused's fitness to proceed. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); Harkins v. State, 494 S.W.2d 7, 13(2) (Mo.1973). See generally State v. Vansandts, 540 S.W.2d 192, 201(1, 2) (Mo.App.1976). Here the first psychiatric report was not conteste......