Lewis v. U.S., 75-1891

Decision Date18 March 1976
Docket NumberNo. 75-1891,75-1891
Citation542 F.2d 50
PartiesJames Milton LEWIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Thomas M. Bradshaw, Asst. Federal Public Defender, W.D.Mo., Kansas City, Mo., filed brief for appellee.

Bert C. Hurn, U.S Atty., and J. Whitfield Moody, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., filed brief for appellee.

Before LAY, ROSS and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to set aside his 1973 conviction after a jury trial finding him guilty on two counts of possession with intent to distribute heroin and one count of distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Sentence was imposed of 12 years imprisonment and 6 years special parole on each count, to run concurrently. 1 Appellant's conviction was affirmed on appeal by this court in an unpublished opinion. United States v. Lewis, No. 73-1546 (8th Cir., February 28, 1974).

In the instant section 2255 matter, the Honorable William H. Becker, Chief Judge, Western District of Missouri, appointed counsel and held an evidentiary hearing on appellant's claim that he was incompetent to stand trial at the time of his jury trial and conviction in 1973 because of his addiction to narcotics.

The court, in denying appellant's motion to vacate his conviction, found that the evidence failed to support appellant's contentions

that he was incompetent because of narcotics addiction when he entered his plea of not guilty and was tried by a jury and convicted; that in fact the evidence affirmatively shows by a preponderance thereof that he was competent, although he was using drugs in a manner that did not impair his ability to understand the nature of the proceedings and to assist his counsel in his defense.

Appellant's competency to stand trial was not raised in the trial resulting in his conviction and therefore was a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. White v. United States, 367 F.2d 788 (8th Cir. 1966); Hayes v. United States, 305 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1962). The sole issue before us is whether the trial court's finding of competency is clearly erroneous.

Appellant's evidence consisted almost entirely of his own testimony with respect to his use of narcotics prior to and during the trial and up to the time of sentencing during which time he was free on bond. He also offered the testimony of Dr. Valins, who examined him on September 22, 1975. The latter concluded that although appellant was aware of the nature of the charges pending against him in the criminal case in 1973, he was not able to assist his attorney in his defense as a result of heroin addiction and depression. Dr. Valins' opinion was largely based upon the statements made to him by appellant during the course of the examination in 1975.

Attorney Gad Smith, who represented appellant in the instant trial, and attorney Robert Adelman, who represented appellant in another case during a portion of the same period, both testified they had no problems communicating with appellant or obtaining his cooperation in preparing for hearings on the motion to suppress and in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • U.S. v. Lyons
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 16, 1984
    .......         We view the reasoning of such rulings as Green with profound misgivings. To us it seems to rest on the proposition that, assuming drug addiction itself is neither a mental ... holdings that use of narcotics does not per se render a defendant incompetent to stand trial, Lewis v. United States, 542 F.2d 50, 51 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 837, 97 S.Ct. 105, 50 L.Ed.2d ......
  • U.S. v. Shan Wei Yu, 06-1273.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 2, 2007
    ...was taking medications (Prozac, Seroquel, Ativan, and sleeping pills) did not necessarily require such a hearing. See Lewis v. United States, 542 F.2d 50, 51 (8th Cir.1976). The district court did not err by not holding a competency Yu also maintains that a new trial is warranted because th......
  • Graham v. U.S., 87-6234
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • May 19, 1988
    ...was incompetent to stand trial under the standard enunciated in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). See Lewis v. United States, 542 F.2d 50, 51 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 837 (1976); United States v. Smith, 521 F.2d 374, 377 (10th Cir.1975); White v. United Sta......
  • Lewis v. U.S., 78-1260
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 13, 1978
    ...his cooperation in preparing for hearings on the motion to suppress and in the trial of the narcotics case." Lewis v. United States, 542 F.2d 50, 51 (8th Cir. 1976). With this background we turn to the actual trial record of the narcotics case in 1973. Lewis was convicted of two counts of p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT