Osborne v. Thompson, 79-1310

• Decision Date: 20 December 1979
• Docket Number: No. 79-1310,79-1310
• Citation: 610 F.2d 461
• Parties: Billy OSBORNE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Vinson F. THOMPSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 461

610 F.2d 461

Billy OSBORNE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Vinson F. THOMPSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 79-1310.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 28, 1979.

Decided Dec. 20, 1979.

William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Tenn., William P. Sizer, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Tenn., for respondent-appellant.

William H. Farmer, Federal Public Defender, Robert L. Tucker, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Nashville, Tenn., for petitioner-appellee.

Billy Osborne, pro se.

Before MERRITT and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Tennessee appeals the judgment of the District Court granting Osborne's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The District Judge, Thomas A. Wiseman, found that the Tennessee trial court had not made an adequate due process determination of petitioner's competency to stand trial.

On March 19, 1975, Osborne pleaded guilty in Knox County, Tennessee, Criminal Court to each of five separate indictments, charging first degree burglary, second degree burglary, third degree burglary, attempt to commit a felony, and grand larceny. Prior to the plea, the trial court had granted petitioner's motion for a psychiatric examination to determine petitioner's competency to stand trial. On March 6, 1975, a written psychiatric report had been filed stating that petitioner was "marginally" competent to understand the charges brought against him, and to aid in his defense. The report had also disclosed that petitioner had a chronic mental illness and was being maintained on medication.

After petitioner pleaded guilty, the trial judge reserved imposition of judgment for four months. On May 22, 1975, before the four months expired, petitioner was returned to the Criminal Court. Based on his conduct, incoherence, obvious emotional instability and low intelligence, the state court declared him "mentally incompetent." The same trial judge who accepted the guilty pleas ordered him sent to Central State Hospital for further psychiatric examination. Two months later, Central State filed a report with the court stating that petitioner was "borderline" competent, suffering from mental retardation and would "need special assistance from his attorney."

On September 19, 1975, when petitioner next appeared before the court, he attempted to withdraw his guilty pleas. The court recessed, deliberated, and five days later reconvened to deny the motion and to enter judgment.

Other than the finding of incompetency made on May 22, 1975, the court made no explicit ruling on competency. The trial court did not conduct a hearing specifically on whether petitioner was competent to stand trial At the time he pleaded guilty to the charges of the indictments. The trial judge on initially accepting the guilty plea, asked primarily a litany of yes or no questions. When asked if anyone was putting pressure on him to force him to plead guilty, petitioner replied "Well, I don't know. . . . Me (sic) have just got a wife and baby I want to come back to." Based on remarks by the prosecutor, petitioner believed, justifiably, that his wife would be prosecuted if he did not enter into the plea bargain agreement. Petitioner's ability fully to understand the gravity of his and his wife's legal situation, therefore, was of utmost importance.

The District Court held, applying the due process...