State v. Hatfield
| Decision Date | 19 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 19987,19987 |
| Citation | 413 S.E.2d 162,186 W.Va. 507 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Stephen W. HATFIELD, Defendant Below, Appellant. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. "When a criminal defendant proposes to enter a plea of guilty, the trial judge should interrogate such defendant on the record with regard to his intelligent understanding of the following rights, some of which he will waive by pleading guilty: 1) the right to retain counsel of his choice, and if indigent, the right to court appointed counsel; 2) the right to consult with counsel and have counsel prepare the defense; 3) the right to a public trial by an impartial jury of twelve persons; 4) the right to have the State prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the right of the defendant to stand mute during the proceedings; 5) the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers; 6) the right to present witnesses in his own defense and to testify himself in his own defense; 7) the right to appeal the conviction for any errors of law; 8) the right to move to suppress illegally obtained evidence and illegally obtained confessions; and, 9) the right to challenge in the trial court and on appeal all pre-trial proceedings." Syl. pt. 3, Call v. McKenzie, 159 W.Va. 191, 220 S.E.2d 665 (1975).
2. "When a trial judge is made aware of a possible problem with defendant's competency, it is abuse of discretion to deny a motion for psychiatric evaluation." Syl. pt. 4, in part, State v. Demastus, 165 W.Va. 572, 270 S.E.2d 649 (1980).
3. Syl. pt. 2, State v. Watson, 173 W.Va. 553, 318 S.E.2d 603 (1984).
4. "The test for mental competency to stand trial and the test for mental competency to plead guilty are the same." Syl. pt. 2, State v. Cheshire, 170 W.Va. 217, 292 S.E.2d 628 (1982).
5. "It is a fundamental guaranty of due process that a defendant cannot be tried or convicted for a crime while he or she is mentally incompetent." State v. Cheshire, 170 W.Va. 217, 219, 292 S.E.2d 628, 630 (1982).
6. Where a circuit court has found that a defendant in a criminal case where the possible punishment is life imprisonment without mercy is competent to stand trial, but subsequent to the competency hearing, the defendant attempts to commit suicide, then against advice of counsel indicates his desire to plead guilty to the charges in the indictment, before taking the plea of guilty, the trial judge should make certain inquiries of the defendant and counsel for the defendant in addition to those mandated in Call v. McKenzie, 159 W.Va. 191, 220 S.E.2d 665 (1975). The court should require counsel to state on the record the reason why counsel opposes the guilty plea. The court should then ask the defendant to acknowledge on the record that he understands his counsel's statements and if in view of them he still desires to plead guilty. If the defendant then states he still desires to plead guilty, the court may accept the plea.
Thomas W. Smith, Jack Thompson, Charleston, for appellant.
Mario J. Palumbo, Teresa A. Tarr, Office of the Atty. Gen., Charleston, for appellee.
This case is before the Court upon the appeal of Stephen W. Hatfield. The appellee is the State of West Virginia. The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of first degree murder and two counts of malicious wounding in the Circuit Court of Wayne County. Following the guilty plea, the appellant was sentenced to life with no mercy for the first degree murder charge and two to ten years for each malicious wounding charge.
The allegations, based upon the grand jury proceedings, forensic evaluations, and the record of the guilty plea and sentencing proceedings, are as follows.
On May 8, 1988, the appellant went to see his former girlfriend, Tracey Andrews, in order to give her something that belonged to her, as well as a key to his own residence so that she could get some of her personal belongings. At the time, Andrews was living with her current boyfriend, Dewey Meyers.
When the appellant arrived at Meyers' residence, he began talking to Andrews. Andrews suggested that they go inside the house to see Meyers. Upon going inside the house, they found Meyers seated at the kitchen table. At this point, the appellant's and State's versions differ as to what exactly transpired. However, it is clear that the appellant shot at Meyers several times. Meyers was struck by at least one bullet during this particular shooting. After taking Andrews into an adjoining bedroom, the appellant pursued Meyers through the neighborhood, shooting at him. Meyers fell down and the appellant shot him again, in Meyers' jaw. As the appellant reloaded his gun, Meyers fled.
The appellant went back into the house and took Andrews outside. As Andrews tried to get away, the appellant shot her twice in the back. After Andrews fell to the ground, the appellant stood over her and shot her again, in the back of her head. Andrews died from the gunshot wounds.
The appellant then went to his car, picked up something from the back seat, and reloaded his gun. The appellant then walked over to Meyers' neighbor, Roger Cox, and demanded Cox's car keys. When Cox tried to explain that he did not have the keys, the appellant shot Cox in the chest and in the hand. The appellant then fled the scene.
The appellant was eventually captured by the police following a shootout on State Route 60. The appellant was wounded during this shootout.
The appellant was indicted on July 5, 1988, on one count of first degree murder and two counts of malicious wounding.
Following indictment, the appellant, while recuperating from gunshot wounds, attempted suicide, and consequently, numerous proceedings began with respect to the appellant's mental status.
On June 10, 1988, a motion for a psychiatric evaluation was filed by counsel for the appellant to determine if the appellant was capable of knowingly and intelligently waiving certain constitutional rights before he made any statements; if the appellant was capable of assisting counsel and understanding the nature of the proceedings against him; and if, at the time of commission, the appellant appreciated the wrongfulness of his act. 1 A hearing was held on that day, June 10, 1988, at which Dr. Johnny L. Gallemore, Jr. testified. Dr. Gallemore stated that he had performed "psychiatric consultation" following the appellant's suicide attempt.
On July 7, 1988, the circuit court ordered that the appellant be committed for twenty days to Weston State Hospital to undergo psychiatric examinations, and on August 15, 1988, the circuit court issued an order extending the appellant's stay at Weston for an additional twenty days. 2
While he was at Weston, the appellant was examined and evaluated by Dr. Herbert C. Haynes, a psychiatrist, and Earnest Watkins, the Director of Psychology at Weston.
The report filed by Watkins, on September 17, 1988, was based upon the "Georgia Court Competency Test" and the "Competency to Stand Trial: Assessment Instrument" test. Watkins' report contained the finding that the appellant is competent to stand trial, but is not criminally responsible for his actions. 3
The report filed by Dr. Haynes, on October 12, 1988, found that the appellant is not competent to stand trial, but not because the appellant lacks comprehension of criminal proceedings, but because the appellant suffers from major depression and an intense need for punishment as extreme as death. Dr. Haynes also found that the appellant is not criminally responsible for his actions.
The appellant filed a motion for a competency hearing pursuant to W.Va.Code, 27-6A-1 [1983] and W.Va.Code, 27-6A-2 [1979]. 4
On October 17, 1988, the circuit court granted the State's request that the appellant undergo further psychiatric evaluation and ordered that the appellant be examined by Dr. Ralph Smith.
Dr. Smith met with the appellant from October, 1988, to January, 1989, conducted telephone interviews, reviewed criminal investigation reports, and newspaper accounts of the events of May 8, 1988.
On January 23, 1989, Dr. Smith wrote a letter to the prosecuting attorney, stating that, in his opinion, the appellant is competent to stand trial, but he (Dr. Smith) is presently reviewing records to determine whether or not the appellant is criminally responsible.
A competency hearing was held in the circuit court on January 27, 1989. The court, in an order dated February 6, 1989, found the appellant competent to stand trial by a preponderance of the evidence, and set trial for February 27, 1989. The court also ordered that the appellant may request a hearing on the court's findings "within a reasonable time." 5
On February 7 or 8, 1989, the appellant attempted to commit suicide for the second time.
On February 27, 1989, the date that had been set for trial, the appellant pled guilty to all three counts of the indictment. This plea was entered against the advice of defense counsel. 6
On December 27, 1989, the appellant was sentenced to life with no mercy for the first degree murder charge, and two to ten years for each malicious wounding charge.
Primarily, the appellant raises arguments with respect to the appellant's competence and the circuit court's acceptance of the guilty plea.
In Call v. McKenzie, 159 W.Va. 191, 220 S.E.2d 665 (1975), this Court set forth guidelines that should be followed by a trial court before accepting a guilty plea.
When a criminal defendant proposes to enter a plea of guilty, the trial judge should interrogate such defendant on the record with regard to his intelligent understanding of the following rights, some of which he will waive by pleading guilty: 1) the right to retain ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Painter, 29758.
......After his arrest and indictment Mr. Morris was initially found incompetent to stand trial and was referred to a State mental institution. In 1993, and again on October 24, 1995, the trial court concluded that Mr. Morris was competent to stand trial. At the second ...Hatfield, 186 W.Va. 507, 413 S.E.2d 162 (1991) . This Court has also made it clear that "[n]o person may be subjected to trial on a criminal charge when, by ......
-
Hatfield v. Ballard
...... [878 F.Supp.2d 636] Judge recommended that this Court (1) grant Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) deny Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) grant Petitioner's request for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and set aside his conviction and discharge him unless the State elects to timely retry him. Respondent filed timely objections to the PF & R. The Court heard oral argument, and Respondent conceded that Petitioner never received a constitutionally adequate competency hearing. Instead, Respondent relied entirely on a procedural default argument that was raised ......
-
State v. Sanders
...... 549 S.E.2d 50 Cheshire, 170 W.Va. 217, 219, 292 S.E.2d 628, 630 (1982)." Syl. pt. 5, State v. Hatfield, 186 W.Va. 507, 413 S.E.2d 162 (1991) ; see also State v. Milam, 159 W.Va. 691, 226 S.E.2d 433 (1976) ; State v. Harrison, 36 W.Va. 729, 15 S.E. 982 (1892). . The requirement that a criminal defendant be mentally competent during the course of critical proceedings vindicates ......
-
Hatfield v. Painter
....... [671 S.E.2d 454] . Syllabus by the Court . 1. "Findings of fact made by a trial court in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding will not be set aside or reversed on appeal by this Court unless such findings are clearly wrong." Syllabus point 1, State ex . [671 S.E.2d 455] . rel. Postelwaite v. Bechtold, 158 W.Va. 479, 212 S.E.2d 69 (1975). . 2. "A circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. " Syllabus point 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994). . 3. "Under the ......