U.S. v. Hinton
| Decision Date | 11 April 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-4059,99-4059 |
| Citation | 218 F.3d 910 |
| Parties | (8th Cir. 2000) United States of America, Appellee, v. Roger Eugene Hinton, Appellant. Submitted: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Before BOWMAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and CARMAN,1 Judge.
Roger Eugene Hinton appeals the conviction and sentence entered by the district court 2 following his guilty plea to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). We affirm.
On October 4, 1997, Hinton was approached by state law enforcement officers in Bloomfield, Iowa, on an outstanding arrest warrant as a result of his state conviction for second degree theft and being a habitual offender. Upon approach, the officers notified Hinton about the warrant, and Hinton told the officers that he was not going to jail. Hinton produced a weapon and pointed it at the officers. A gunfight ensued, and Hinton and one of the officers were wounded. When the officers finally arrested Hinton, he had a stolen Smith & Wesson 9mm semiautomatic weapon on his person. A search of his truck and trailer produced additional weapons and ammunition.
On May 21, 1998, Hinton pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On November 2, 1998, Hinton filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and a notice of insanity defense. Hinton sought and obtained an order permitting him to transfer from federal custody back to the custody of the state of Iowa while awaiting federal sentencing. Hinton then sought and consented to transfer from Iowa state custody to the custody of the state of Arizona to appear on pending criminal charges in that jurisdiction. On December 11, 1998, while awaiting trial in Arizona, Hinton attempted to hang himself in jail. As a result of the attempted suicide, he may have been deprived of oxygen for as long as nine minutes. Hinton was hospitalized for six days. The state charges in Arizona were dismissed without prejudice, and Hinton was sent back to Iowa. On September 3, 1999, the federal district court held a competency hearing and determined that Hinton was competent to proceed. On October 27, 1999, the federal district court sentenced Hinton to 120 months of imprisonment. Hinton appeals.
Hinton contends that the district court violated his right to due process by forcing him to proceed to sentencing in this criminal matter while incompetent. Hinton asserts that his amnesia, due to the brain hypoxia he suffered during the attempted hanging, rendered him incompetent to be sentenced. Hinton acknowledges that while amnesia alone is not a bar to prosecution, due process requires that a defendant be able to perform the functions essential to the fairness and accuracy of a criminal proceeding. Hinton argues that because he was not able to consult with and assist his counsel at sentencing, his due process rights were violated.
"Due process requires that a defendant be tried only if he is competent to assist in his own defense." United States v. Voice, 627 F.2d 138, 140 (8th Cir. 1980). The question is "whether the accused 'has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.'" Id. at 141(quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960)). We will affirm the district court's factual determination of competency unless clearly erroneous. See United States v. Steil, 916 F.2d 485, 488 (8th Cir. 1990).
Although Hinton is no longer able to recall the events leading up to his arrest and his plea, it is clear from the plea transcript that Hinton fully recalled the events at the time of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Rickert
...person is a violation of due process, Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); United States v. Hinton, 218 F.3d 910, 912 (8th Cir.2000), and a defendant must be competent at all stages of prosecution, including sentencing. See Hinton, 218 F.3d at 912;United......
-
U.S. v. Cunningham
...and remanding to the district court for a hearing on the sanity of the defendant at the time of trial)); accord United States v. Hinton, 218 F.3d 910, 912 (8th Cir.2000). Thus, "[i]t has long been accepted that a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand......
-
United States v. Robinson
...(1960)), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1026 (1998). The conviction of an incompetent person is a violation of due process. United States v. Hinton, 218 F.3d 910, 912 (8th Cir. 2000); see also Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171 (1975) ("It has long been accepted that a person whose mental conditi......
-
State v. Parker, 1 CA-CR 08-0990
...Ariz. 134, 136, 912 P.2d 1363, 1365 (App. 1995). 3. Lack of Statute Regarding Conscience and Medical Care ¶29 Citing United States v. Hinton, 218 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2000), Parker argues that there "is no law or statute thatdictates conscience or deems what is appropriate medical care accord......