Haynes v. State, A--15042
Decision Date | 24 June 1970 |
Docket Number | No. A--15042,A--15042 |
Citation | 473 P.2d 299 |
Parties | Jesse James HAYNES, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Whether the defendant should be committed to a mental institution for observation is to be determined by the trial judge upon the evidence before him, and unless it is of such a nature as to create a doubt in his mind as to defendant's sanity, he is justified in denying defendant's request.
2. The existence of a doubt as to defendant's sanity must arise from facts and circumstances of a substantial character. There must exist reasons to believe that the claim of insanity made on behalf of the accused is genuine and not simulated as a means of defeating or delaying justice and these questions must be decided by trial judge.
3. The finding of the trial judge in this respect will not be disturbed on appeal unless his finding was contrary to the evidence and a clear abuse of discretion is shown.
4. Where there is no evidence before the Court as to circumstances surrounding the alleged crime and appeal is from a guilty plea, this Court does not feel at liberty in reduction of sentence.
Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; Robert D. Simms, Judge.
Jesse James Haynes plead guilty to the crime of Second Degree Rape in case number 23,295, and appeals. Affirmed.
Jay Dalton, Public Defender, Tulsa County, for plaintiff in error.
G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., Dale F. Crowder, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Jessie James Haynes was charged by information with Rape in the Second Degree. He was sentenced upon a plea of guilty to serve Fifteen Years in the penitentiary. It is from that judgment and sentence that he appeals to this Court. He asserts two assignments of error, one of which is that the punishment was excessive. Defendant's main contention is that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to be sent to a mental hospital for an observation period of ninety days.
The defendant was represented by the public defender's office of Tulsa County. Appearing in defendant's behalf was Stewart A. Pearce, II, Acting Public Defender. And, also, James Khourie, and Marian Dyer, Assistant Public Defenders. All three attorneys appeared before District Judge S. J. Clendinning and argued in support of a Motion to Commit the defendant for ninety days observation. Mr. Dyer advised the trial judge that defendant was unable to assist in the preparation of his case because of his mental condition. He stated that he had visited with him thirty minutes in the county jail, and he was never able to understand that they were interested in building a defense, and in his opinion, he was unable to assist in his own defense.
Mr. Pearce stated he had conferred with defendant twice and had represented defendant at the preliminary hearing; that defendant appeared to him to be suffering from a severe personality disturbance, disorientation, and was completely confused as to the penalties of the crime with which he is charged, and his answers are no way responsive, and he concurred in Mr. Oylers opinion that defendant should be sent to the hospital for ninety days observation. That, in his opinion, he was unable to assist counsel or stand trial. Then defendant was interrogated by the Court, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. State
...was going on.' (Tr. 3 and 4) The following language pertinent to a resolution of this assignment appears in the Syllabus to Haynes v. State, Okl.Cr., 473 P.2d 299 (1970): 'Whether the defendant should be committed to a mental institution for observation is to be determined by the trial judg......
-
Reynolds v. State, F-76-471
...and the finding of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. See, Haynes v. State, Okl.Cr., 473 P.2d 299 (1970). In the present case, the trial court had ample opportunity to observe and evaluate defendant's condition, both during trial and......
-
Frazier v. State
...v. State, Okl.Cr., 536 P.2d 945 (1975). Finding no abuse of discretion, such a ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. Haynes v. State, Okl.Cr., 473 P.2d 299 (1970). Next, it is argued that the prosecutor committed reversible error by misstating the law in closing argument, as "MR. HOPPER: ......
-
Dollar v. State
...and the finding of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. See, Haynes v. State, 473 P.2d 299 (Okl.Cr.1970); Reynolds v. State, 575 P.2d 628 In the present case, the judge in his second trial had ample opportunity to observe and evaluate ......