United States v. Freddie Williams, 468 F.2d 819 (5th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Freddie Williams, 468 F.2d 819 (5th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
40 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Kenneth R. Jackson, Jr. (ca11, 2021-06-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Kenneth R. Jackson, Jr.
11th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
For that proposition, it points to United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir. 1972), a decision from the Old Fifth that binds us, see Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Markeith Cox
11th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir. 1972); 2 see United States v. Wingo, 789 F.3d 1226 , 1235-36 & n.10 (11th Cir. 2015) (applying Williams, which construed the former mental incompetency statute, to the statute now in effect, 18 U.S.C. § 4241 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Joel Steinger
11th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
See id. at 1234, 1236 (reviewing a § 4241(a) claim for abuse of discretion despite the fact that no objection was made in the district court); United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972) (applying the same standard). 4 B.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Andrew Wingo
11th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972). 10 Here, the combined evidence under two of the three prongs created reasonable cause to believe that Wingo was incompetent to proceed to trial or to plead guilty.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Raul S. Ramirez
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Raul S. Ramirez
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir. 1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Duncan
11th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir. 1972). 3 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Leon Glaspy
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir. 1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Leon Glaspy
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Davis
unknown court · 1995 · confidence medium
United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Davis
5th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bevans
E.D. Pa. · 1990 · confidence medium
If drug use “does not per se render a defendant incompetent to stand trial,” Reed v. United States, 529 F.2d 1239, 1241 (5th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972)), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 887 , 97 S.Ct. 241 , 50 L.Ed.2d 169 (1976), necessarily vitiate a party’s consent to have telephone calls electronically recorded, see United States v. Kelly, 708 F.2d 121, 125-26 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 916 , 104 S.Ct. 279 , 78 L.Ed.2d 258 (1983); id. at 127 (Gibbons, J., dissenting), or prohibit an individual from entering a valid guilty plea, Williams v.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert Lyons (2×)
5th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Several were received, including briefs from the American Bar Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, for all of which we are obliged 3 This rule is consistent with holdings that use of narcotics does not per se render a defendant incompetent to stand trial, Lewis v. United States, 542 F.2d 50, 51 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 837 , 97 S.Ct. 105 , 50 L.Ed.2d 103 (1976); United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972); Grennett v. United States, 403 F.2d 928, 931 (D.C.Cir.1968), and that mere alcoholism does not…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Henry Reed v. United States
5th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
Section 4244, 18 U.S.C., provides for a competency hearing on the motion of the government, the defendant, or the court itself, if there is “reasonable cause to believe that a [defendant] may be presently insane or otherwise so mentally incompetent as to be unable to understand the proceedings against him or properly to assist in his own defense . . . .” We held in United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir. 1972), that *1241 “[u]se of narcotics does not per se render a defendant incompetent to stand trial.” Accord, Warren v. United States, 488 F.2d 862 (5th Cir. 1974).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Sylvester Eugene Bennett
11th Cir. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972) (per curiam). 1 If, at any time after the defendant begins supervised release but before he completes his sentence, “there is reasonable cause to believe that [he] may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him ... unable to understand thé nature and consequences of the proceedings against him,” then the district court must sua sponte conduct a competency hearing. 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (a).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Raquel D'Saronno
11th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972). 3 The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from trying a defendant who is incompetent.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Jonas Michel
11th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it did not order sua sponte a competency hearing).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Lazaro Mateo
11th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972). 4 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Jeffery Charles Nicoll, Jr.
11th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972). 1 A district court shall order a hearing sua sponte “if there is reasonable cause to believe that a defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.” 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (a).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Saingelus Saingerard
11th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972) (per curiam). 1 Section 4241(a) of Title 18 of the United States Code provides that: At any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an offense and prior to the sentencing of the defendant, or at any time after the commencement of probation or supervised release and pri- or to the completion of the sentence, the defendant or the attorney for the Government may file a motion for a hearing to determine the mental competency of the defendant.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Dean Lawther
11th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir.1972) 1 (interpreting a prior version of 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (a) and stating that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order sua sponte a hearing on the appellant’s competency to stand trial.”).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Terrance Huell Lindsey (2×)
11th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, 468 F.2d 819, 820 (5th Cir. *959 1972) 2 (holding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order sua sponte a hearing on the appellant’s competency to stand trial” because there was no reasonable cause for such a hearing).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. James Robinson
5th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, supra. Cf. Reed v. U. S., supra; Jackson v. United States, 5 Cir. 1975, 512 F.2d 772 (addiction to narcotics does not per se render defendant incompetent to enter guilty plea).
cited Cited "see" Thomas Charles Warren v. United States
5th Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, supra; Rice v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 863 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Freddie WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
72-1269.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 28, 1972.
468 F.2d 819
F. Irvin Dymond, William L. Crull, III, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant., Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., Patrick C. McGinity, Mary Williams Cázalas, Asst. U. S. Attys., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Brown, Goldberg, Morgan.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

F. Irvin Dymond, William L. Crull, III, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant.

Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., Patrick C. McGinity, Mary Williams Cazalas, Asst. U. S. Attys., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Freddie Williams was convicted upon trial by jury of two counts of an indictment alleging sale of heroin,[1] and he appeals. We affirm.

The appellant’s principal contention on this appeal is that the trial court erred in not ordering a competency hearing at the time of trial, to determine whether he was incompetent to stand trial because of narcotic addiction.[2]

The United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 4244, provides for a competency hearing[*820] on motion of the United States Attorney, of the defendant, or on the court’s own motion. At the trial of this case, however, no request was made for a competency hearing, nor was the defense of insanity raised.

The sole indication of the appellant’s being addicted to narcotics was contained in his and his retained counsel’s remarks to the court in mitigation at the time of sentencing. Even then there was no suggestion that Appellant Williams was or had been incompetent to stand trial.

Use of narcotics does not per se render a defendant incompetent to stand trial. See Grennett v. United States, 1968, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 202, 403 F.2d 928, and cases cited in n. 4 at 931. As the Supreme Court has well stated, the “test must be whether [the defendant] 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.” Dusky v. United States, 1960, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824.

Section 4244 provides in part that a competency hearing shall be held if there is “reasonable cause to believe that a [defendant] may be presently insane or otherwise so mentally incompetent as to be unable to understand the proceedings against him or properly to assist in his own defense * * We hold that the district court did not err in failing to order such a hearing on its own motion, since no “reasonable cause” for it was presented. Cf. United States v. Roca-Alvarez, 5th Cir. 1971, 451 F.2d 843. Expressed in another way, the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order sua sponte a hearing on the appellant’s competency to stand trial. See Rice v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 863, cert. denied 398 U.S. 910, 90 S.Ct. 1705, 26 L.Ed.2d 70; Green v. United States, 1967, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 408, 389 F.2d 949.

The appellant correctly contends in his brief, that he has the right to raise the issue of his competency to stand trial by filing a motion to vacate the judgment as is authorized by 28 U. S.C. § 2255. Sanders v. United States, 1963, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148; Smith v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 565. In such proceedings he also can seek relief on grounds that his counsel failed to render effective assistance. See Atilus v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 694. Furthermore, there is a possibility that relief may be forthcoming to the appellant under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4245, governing mental incompetency of a defendant which was undisclosed at trial. We deem it inappropriate to remand the cause, on this record, for a belated § 4244 hearing.

Mr. Williams has elected to represent himself on this appeal. In consideration of this circumstance, we have meticulously examined the entire record. However, we have found nothing approaching reversible error in the proceedings below. The judgment appealed from is due to be and it is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

In violation of former 26 U.S.C. §§ 4704 (a), 4705(a).

2

Appellant also contends that his attorney failed to render effective assistance, because lie did not move for such a hearing.

Rehearing

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

After granting the petition for rehearing in this case we have reconsidered the issues raised on appeal in light of the supplemental brief filed by appellant’s retained counsel, and we find that the contentions are without merit. Accordingly, the court adheres to its original opinion of September 11, 1972, affirming the conviction of appellant Williams.

Affirmed.