Rees v. Peyton, No. 321
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 384 U.S. 312,16 L.Ed.2d 583,86 S.Ct. 1505 |
| Parties | REES v. PEYTON. isc |
| Docket Number | M,No. 321 |
| Decision Date | 31 May 1966 |
v.
PEYTON.
S. White Rhyne, Jr., and Charles A. Dukes, Jr., for petitioner.
Reno S. Harp III, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia, for respondent.
Monroe H. Freedman and Melvin L. Wulf, for the American Civil Liberties Union and others, as amici curiae.
PER CURIAM.
Following a related federal conviction and life sentences for kidnapping, United States v. Rees, D.C., 193 F.Supp. 849, Melvin Davis Rees, Jr., was convicted of murder
Page 313
and sentenced to death by a state court in Virginia, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal in 1962. Rees v. Commonwealth, 203 Va. 850, 127 S.E.2d 406, cert. denied, 372 U.S. 964, 83 S.Ct. 1088, 10 L.Ed.2d 128. Thereafter, a habeas corpus petition was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the state court conviction had violated federal constitutional rights of Rees. The District Court rejected these claims, 225 F.Supp. 507, and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, 341 F.2d 859. With Rees' consent, his counsel then filed in this Court on June 23, 1965, the present petition for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision, and the petition is therefore properly before us for disposition.
Nearly one month after this petition had been filed, Rees directed his counsel to withdraw the petition and forgo any further legal proceedings. Counsel advised this Court that he could not conscientiously accede to these instructions without a psychiatric evaluation of Rees because evidence cast doubt on Rees' mental competency. After further letters from Rees to his counsel and to this Court maintaining his position, counsel had Rees examined by a psychiatrist who filed a detailed report concluding that Rees was mentally incompetent. Psychiatrists selected by the State who sought to examine Rees at the state prison found themselves thwarted by his lack of cooperation, but expressed doubts that he was insane.
Whether or not Rees shall be allowed in these circumstances to withdraw his certiorari petition is a question which it is ultimately the responsibility of this Court to determine, in the resolution of which Rees' mental competence is of prime importance. We have therefore determined that, in aid of the proper exercise of this Court's certiorari jurisdiction, the Federal District Court in which this proceeding commenced should upon due notice to the State and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin v. Francis, No. C1-98-0136.
...significance in this case — which presents the question of whether the state courts' finding of mental competency under Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1996), is binding upon this Court — this Court is more persuaded by the legislative interpretation underlying ......
-
Pierce v. Blaine, No. 04-9000.
...argued that commitment of a capital defendant in a habeas proceeding was permissible under the Supreme Court's decision in Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966) (per As we have explained, the petition for involuntary commitment made a reasonably strong showing t......
-
Goode v. Wainwright, No. 82-5244
...he is suffering from a mental disease, disorder, or defect which may substantially affect his capacity in the premises. Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966). We need not and do not decide whether the Rees test, which related to a defendant's desire t......
-
Kirkpatrick v. Chappell, No. 14-99001
...further habeas proceedings, the petitioner must be competent and his waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Rees v. Peyton , 384 U.S. 312, 313–14, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966) ; Dennis ex rel. Butko v. Budge , 378 F.3d 880, 889 (9th Cir. 2004). A petitioner is competent......
-
Franklin v. Francis, No. C1-98-0136.
...significance in this case — which presents the question of whether the state courts' finding of mental competency under Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1996), is binding upon this Court — this Court is more persuaded by the legislative interpretation underlying ......
-
Pierce v. Blaine, No. 04-9000.
...argued that commitment of a capital defendant in a habeas proceeding was permissible under the Supreme Court's decision in Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966) (per As we have explained, the petition for involuntary commitment made a reasonably strong showing t......
-
Goode v. Wainwright, No. 82-5244
...he is suffering from a mental disease, disorder, or defect which may substantially affect his capacity in the premises. Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966). We need not and do not decide whether the Rees test, which related to a defendant's desire t......
-
Kirkpatrick v. Chappell, No. 14-99001
...further habeas proceedings, the petitioner must be competent and his waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Rees v. Peyton , 384 U.S. 312, 313–14, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966) ; Dennis ex rel. Butko v. Budge , 378 F.3d 880, 889 (9th Cir. 2004). A petitioner is competent......