Westbrook v. Arizona, No. 1250
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 86 S.Ct. 1320,16 L.Ed.2d 429,384 U.S. 150 |
| Docket Number | M,No. 1250 |
| Decision Date | 02 May 1966 |
| Parties | Thomas A. WESTBROOK v. ARIZONA. isc |
v.
ARIZONA.
W. Edward Morgan, for petitioner.
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen. of Arizona, and Paul G. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. Although petitioner received a hearing on the issue of his competence to stand trial, there appears to have been no hearing or inquiry into the issue of his competence to waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and proceed, as he did, to conduct his own defense. 'The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused—whose life or liberty is at stake—is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.' Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461; Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70.
Page 151
From an independent examination of the record, we conclude that the question whether this 'protecting duty' was fulfilled should be re-examined in light of our decision this Term in Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent herewith. It is so ordered.
Judgment vacated and case remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Curtin, No. 12–2528.
...that courts determine whether the defendant's waiver of counsel is intelligent and voluntary. Id. (“Thus, Westbrook [v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966) ] stands only for the unremarkable proposition that when a defendant seeks to waive his right to counsel, a det......
-
People v. Burnett
...68 S.Ct. at p. 323; accord, Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461; Westbrook v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 150, 151, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429; see also, Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 385-386, 86 S.Ct. 836, 842, 15 L.Ed.2d 815.) With this pr......
-
Goode v. Wainwright, No. 82-5244
...court was not required to conduct a separate and distinct hearing on Goode's competence to waive trial counsel. In Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966), the Supreme Court observed Although petitioner received a hearing on the issue of his competence to st......
-
United States v. Dougherty, No. 24318-24324.
...not held that an accused may be competent to stand trial and yet be incompetent to waive his right to counsel. Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966). The Ninth Circuit apparently does not even recognize that limitation of the pro se right, see United State......
-
Hill v. Curtin, No. 12–2528.
...that courts determine whether the defendant's waiver of counsel is intelligent and voluntary. Id. (“Thus, Westbrook [v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966) ] stands only for the unremarkable proposition that when a defendant seeks to waive his right to counsel, a det......
-
People v. Burnett
...68 S.Ct. at p. 323; accord, Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461; Westbrook v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 150, 151, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429; see also, Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 385-386, 86 S.Ct. 836, 842, 15 L.Ed.2d 815.) With this pr......
-
Goode v. Wainwright, No. 82-5244
...court was not required to conduct a separate and distinct hearing on Goode's competence to waive trial counsel. In Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966), the Supreme Court observed Although petitioner received a hearing on the issue of his competence to st......
-
United States v. Dougherty, No. 24318-24324.
...not held that an accused may be competent to stand trial and yet be incompetent to waive his right to counsel. Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966). The Ninth Circuit apparently does not even recognize that limitation of the pro se right, see United State......