Whitehead v. Wainwright, 78-1877
| Decision Date | 07 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1877,78-1877 |
| Citation | 609 F.2d 223 |
| Parties | Frank W. WHITEHEAD, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Dept. of Offender Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, Fla., for respondent-appellant.
George K. Rahdert, St. Petersburg, Fla., (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before GODBOLD, HILL and POLITZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner was tried and convicted for murder by a Florida jury. Having exhausted his state remedies, petitioner filed a habeas petition in district court, alleging that he had been tried while incompetent, in violation of Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). Following three evidentiary hearings, the district court concluded "that petitioner was unable to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and did not have a rational or factual understanding of the proceedings against him on the afternoon of the second day of trial." Whitehead v. Wainwright, 447 F.Supp. 898, 902 (M.D.Fla.1978). Accordingly, the court granted the writ and ordered that petitioner be released by the state of Florida if not retried within 60 days.
The essence of respondent's argument is that the district court judge refused to read the transcript of the state trial, and that if he had he would have found that petitioner was competent. Respondent relies on a statement made by the judge near the end of the first day of hearings, that he would not read the entire 588 page transcript of the state trial. Record, Transcript of Habeas Hearing, Vol. 1 at 49. From this, respondent concludes that the judge never consulted any part of that transcript. What counsel for the state fails to point out is that a few moments later the judge told counsel that he would receive and read that portion of the transcript bearing on the competency issue. Id. at 50. At the next hearing, counsel for the state and counsel for the petitioner requested and received permission to file a joint exhibit consisting of the relevant portions of the trial transcript. Record, Transcript of Habeas Hearing, Vol. II, at 29. Thus, we find no merit to the contention that the district court failed to consider all evidence offered on the issue of competency.
With respect to the finding that petitioner was incompetent on the second day of his trial, we must affirm. The district court made detailed findings of fact, 447 F.Supp. at 899-901, which we conclude are supported by the record. In addition, it appears that the court chose to credit the testimony of petitioner and the two witnesses called by petitioner at the habeas hearing. While we are convinced that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eggers v. Alabama, 2:13-cv-1460-LSC
...the aberrant behavior displayed by some defendants in cases where competency was found to be lacking:For example, in Whitehead v. Wainwright, 609 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1980), the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the habeas petitioner, Whitehead, had been incompetent to stand......
-
Adamson v. Ricketts
...review the supplemental facts under a clearly erroneous standard. Proffitt v. Wainwright, 685 F.2d at 1259 n. 48; Whitehead v. Wainwright, 609 F.2d 223, 224 (5th Cir.1980). They are overwhelmingly supported in the 3. The Error Was Harmless Adamson argues that some excluded evidence shows th......
-
Watts v. Singletary
...presenting superficially similar facts necessarily dictate the same conclusions as to competency. For example, in Whitehead v. Wainwright, 609 F.2d 223 (5th Cir.1980), the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the habeas petitioner, Whitehead, had been incompetent to stand tri......
-
Watts v. State
...are not insensitive to the Federal decision in Whitehead v. Wainright, 447 F.Supp. 898 (M.D.Fla.1978), vacated on other grounds, 609 F.2d 223 (5th Cir.1980), but that case involved a habeas corpus proceeding. Sub judice, we are involved with a direct appeal which, in essence, charges the tr......