Stokes v. United States, H 77-C-407.
Decision Date | 29 April 1982 |
Docket Number | No. H 77-C-407.,H 77-C-407. |
Citation | 538 F. Supp. 298 |
Parties | Robert Lee STOKES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Gary K. Matthews, Hammond, Ind., for petitioner.
Douglas B. Altman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Hammond, Ind., for the U. S.
This habeas corpus proceeding comes to this Court for the third time after two previous appearances before the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 614 F.2d 775; 652 F.2d 1. The history of this case is a long and troubled one which poses extremely difficult but highly significant legal and factual questions. It concerns the claim of a federal prisoner that he was incompetent to stand trial back in 1975. For the sake of completeness, the Court believes it would be valuable to initially trace all of the events leading up to this proceeding.
Stokes was convicted of conspiracy to distribute narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 in this district court in September, 1975, and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with 3 years special parole. The conviction was affirmed without an opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on June 26, 1976. 549 F.2d 804 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 432 U.S. 907, 97 S.Ct. 2953, 53 L.Ed.2d 1080 (1977). On November 28, 1977, over two years after his conviction, Stokes filed a pro se habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging, inter alia, that he had been incompetent at the time of his trial.1 The basis for his request for habeas relief on the issue of competency consisted primarily of his prior commitment to the Norman Beatty Hospital from April 11, 1967 until May 21, 1969.2 Stokes claimed he never understood why he had been released in 1969, and further that he should not have been released at that time. In support of that contention, he claimed that hospital staff members had expressed reservations about his release. His most significant claim in the petition was that he had informed trial counsel that he had been insane at the time of the federal offense, and that he was incompetent to stand trial. Further, counsel never informed the Court of Stokes' past medical history nor did he raise the issues of incompetency or insanity.
On December 5, 1977, the Court ordered the Government to respond by no later than February 1, 1978.3 No response was filed by that date. Stokes then proceeded to file a "Motion to Enforce Show Cause Order" on February 13, 1978, claiming that he was entitled to habeas corpus relief as a result of the Government's noncompliance with the Court's Order. On April 25, 1978, Stokes filed a motion for summary judgment on the same ground. In a letter dated July 3, 1978, and filed on July 11, 1978, Stokes petitioned the Clerk of the Court to enter a default judgment against the Government. No action was taken by the Government nor by the Court in response to any of these three filings by Stokes.
On January 5, 1979, the Government filed its reasons for failing to comply with the Court's December 5, 1977 Order.4 On January 8, 1979, the Government's response was at last filed. It argued the competency issue as follows:
Nothing in the record indicates that the Petitioner was unable to consult with his attorney. To the contrary, a review of the record shows that he was quite capable of such consultation. For example, the Government notes the statement of the Petitioner's counsel on page 1988 of the transcript that he had reviewed an important tactical matter with the Petitioner at length and found him in full accord. On pages 2111-2112 of the transcript, his counsel states that the Petitioner decided not to take the stand with a full understanding of the fact that it was his decision whether or not to do so. His counsel expressed approval of the Petitioner's decision. In addition, the Government notes that the Petitioner did take the stand briefly on the limited question of voluntariness of an interview (Tr., pp. 1386-1393). He was able to answer all questions lucidly, without any apparent difficulties. Finally, the protrait sic painted of the Petitioner by his counsel in his defense was of a sociable, well-adjusted individual who took his friends' mother shopping and their father fishing and to baseball games. (Tr., pp. 2329-2330). This record conclusively demonstrates that the Petitioner was competent to stand trial. Consequently, the Government submits the Court should dispose of his claim of incompetency without a hearing. United States v. Collier, 399 F.2d 705 (7th Cir., 1968).
On January 12, 1979, the district court, without any hearing, rejected Stokes' claim that he was incompetent at the time of trial. In his Memorandum, Judge Sharp adopted verbatim the above quoted argument of the Government.5 On February 26, 1979, Stokes filed a notice of appeal. In an unpublished order filed on December 28, 1979, 614 F.2d 775 (7th Cir. 1979), the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of this Court on the ground that the record, the sole material relied upon by Judge Sharp, did "not conclusively establish that Stokes' allegations are without merit." Mem.Op. at 4. The case was remanded and the district court "directed to order the production of relevant records and to consider the advisability of permitting further development of the relevant facts by discovery or otherwise." Id. at 5.
On January 18, 1980, the Government filed a motion requesting that a psychiatric examination be performed upon Stokes.6 The motion was granted at a hearing held on January 31, 1980, and Stokes was transferred to the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri. In compliance with the mandate of the Court of Appeals, the district court, on February 11, 1980, ordered the Superintendent of the Logansport State Hospital to deliver as expeditiously as possible a copy of all records in his custody relating to the confinement, treatment and release of Robert Stokes at Beatty Memorial Hospital between 1967-69. The records were received by the Clerk's Office on February 19, 1980, and immediately forwarded to Springfield, along with the trial transcript. The Springfield medical report was filed with the Court on March 24, 1980.
A hearing was held on May 20, 1980. At that time, Stokes (appearing pro se) was informed that a further hearing would be held on June 4, 1980, at which time he would be given the opportunity to present evidence supporting his claim that he was incompetent to stand trial. Stokes' motion for the appointment of counsel was granted.
On June 2, 1980, Gary Matthews, Stokes' appointed counsel, filed a motion for a continuance. The motion was granted that same day and the competency hearing was rescheduled for July 10, 1980. After reviewing the Springfield report, the Beatty records and the case in whole, Stokes' counsel filed on July 9, 1980, a motion for the employment of a psychiatrist as well as another continuance.
The hearing for July 10, 1980, proceeded forward as scheduled. In a Memorandum and Order filed on July 18, 1980, Judge Sharp held that Stokes had been competent to stand trial in 1975. The motions for the appointment of a psychiatrist and a continuance were also denied.7 In finding Stokes to have been competent, Judge Sharp placed considerable reliance upon his own observations of Stokes during the trial and the representations of competency made by Stokes' trial attorney.
On July 30, 1980, Stokes again filed a notice of appeal which raised the following points:
In an opinion filed on June 18, 1981, the Court of Appeals again reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. 652 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1981). The appellate court was deeply troubled by the nature of the hearing which was conducted.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilcoxson v State
...with the defendant at or near the time of trial. United States v. Renfroe, 678 F.Supp. 76, 78 (D. Delaware 1988); Stokes v. United States, 538 F.Supp. 298, 307 (N.D.Ind. 1982). The absence of psychological or psychiatric evidence will not necessarily render a retrospective determination "im......
-
US v. Renfroe, Crim. A. No. 86-23 LON.
...is sufficient available evidence to insure that a reliable determination can be made, such an inquiry is proper. Stokes v. United States, 538 F.Supp. 298, 307 (D.Ind.1982). See also United States v. Johns, 728 F.2d 953, 957 (7th Cir.1984) (court is cognizant of possibility of conducting a n......
-
Stokes v. U.S.
...572 703 F.2d 572 Stokes v. U. S. 82-1966 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Seventh Circuit 2/24/83 N.D.Ind., 538 F.Supp. 298 ...