Sevigny v. Langlois, 1461
| Decision Date | 06 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 1461,1461 |
| Citation | 94 R.I. 230,179 A.2d 496 |
| Parties | Leo SEVIGNY v. Harold V. LANGLOIS, Warden. M. P. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Leo P. McGowan, Public Defender, for petitioner.
J. Joseph Nugent, Atty. Gen., William J. Counihan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We ordered the writ to issue, returnable on February 2, 1962. On that date the cause was argued before us by the public defender on behalf of the petitioner and by an assistant attorney general on behalf of the respondent.
It appears from the petition and from the record of certain proceedings in the superior court that petitioner on May 31, 1957 waived action by the grand jury on a charge of statutory burning and at that time was given a deferred sentence. On August 2, 1958 he was arraigned before a superior court justice as a deferred sentence violator, having been charged with setting fire to the Central high school in Providence. He was held without bail on the charge of having violated the terms of his deferred sentence, pending a presentence report and psychiatric examination.
It further appears that on August 18, 1958 Dr. Herbert H. Myers, clinical psychiatrist for the Department of Social Welfare, made a report wherein as a result of his examination he advised that petitioner be committed to the state hospital for mental diseases. In response to an inquiry apparently made by the attorney general, Dr. Myers renewed his recommendation and petitioner was committed on November 15, 1958 and remained at the state hospital for mental diseases for eleven months, after which he was returned to the adult correctional institutions. Meanwhile, petitioner had been indicted for arson in connection with the burning of Central high school. This indictment, No. 29,022, was returned on October 20, 1958, while petitioner was being held without bail. Presumably, in the existing circumstances, petitioner was held without bail on said indictment although no such allegation appears in the record.
The record discloses that Dr. Myers made a total of seven psychiatric examinations, namely, August 18, 1958, November 19, 1958, April 18, 1960, June 7, 1960, July 12, 1960, September 29, 1960 and January 26, 1962. The purpose of these examinations was to determine whether petitioner was mentally competent to stand trial as well as to ascertain if he could be sentenced for violation of the deferred sentence. The substance of all such reports, with the exception of those dated September 29, 1960 and January 26, 1962, was to the effect that petitioner could not distinguish between right and wrong. The last two reports mentioned indicated that he had improved to the extent that he could distinguish between right and wrong, and was competent to stand trial. The September 29, 1960 report, however, appears to have included the phrase 'prognosis guarded,' leaving some doubt as to petitioner's mental condition.
On October 17, 1960 a hearing was had in the superior court on a motion made by the public defender to permit petitioner to demur to indictment No. 29,022. The transcript thereof was made a part of the record in the instant proceedings by agreement of the parties. It appears therefrom that except for the motion for permission to demur as aforesaid no other action had previously been taken by petitioner or in his behalf in connection with the indictment. The superior court justice granted the motion, but whether the demurrer was subsequently heard on its merits does not appear.
At the October 17, 1960 hearing Dr. Myers was questioned about the contents of his several reports. The court expressed dissatisfaction with his diagnosis of petitioner and ordered a further examination, suggesting that the attorney general and public defender confer on the selection of an independent psychiatrist.
We are informed by the assistant attorney general, without objection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Genereux v. Pelosi
...limitations on the application of § 12-13-7. The issue though previously considered by this court was not determined by us. Sevigny v. Langlois, R.I., 179 A.2d 496. The federal statutes providing for pretrial commitment are found in 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 4244-48. The relevant portions provide in s......
-
State v. Palmigiano
...(1969 Reenactment) § 12-13-7. 1 To obtain relief under the provision, the defendant must request a trial. Sevigny v. Langlois, 94 R.I. 230, 234, 179 A.2d 496, 498 (1962). Since the record discloses no such request, defendant cannot invoke the aid of this section. Therefore, we reach neither......