retrospective competency hearing in Oklahoma

2004Citing to section 1175.1(3), this Court found the competency statutes “require only a determination that Appellant was competent to participate in criminal proceedings before his conviction.” See also Bryan v. State, 935 P.2d 338, 350 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied 522 U.S. 957 , 118 S.Ct. 383 , 139 L.Ed.2d 299 (1997).

2004Citing to section 1175.1(3), this Court found the competency statutes “require only a determination that Appellant was competent to participate in criminal proceedings before his conviction.” See also Bryan v. State, 935 P.2d 338, 350 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied 522 U.S. 957 , 118 S.Ct. 383 , 139 L.Ed.2d 299 (1997).

2004Citing to section 1175.1(3), this Court found the competency statutes “require only a determination that Appellant was competent to participate in criminal proceedings before his conviction.” See also Bryan v. State, 935 P.2d 338, 350 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied 522 U.S. 957 , 118 S.Ct. 383 , 139 L.Ed.2d 299 (1997).

1998Likewise, we decline to reconsider our holding in Tate v. State, 896 P.2d 1182 (Okl.Cr.1995) and Lambert v. State, 888 P.2d 494 (Okl.Cr.1994), where we rejected the argument that the Oklahoma statutes do not require a defendant to have a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him as long as he understands the nature of them. ¶ 17 In his second supplemental claim of error, Petitioner contends the trial court's finding of feasibility to hold a retrospective competency hearing was erroneous because rather than holding a feasibility hearing, the trial court relied on

1998Likewise, we decline to reconsider our holding in Tate v. State, 896 P.2d 1182 (Okl.Cr.1995) and Lambert v. State, 888 P.2d 494 (Okl.Cr.1994), where we rejected the argument that the Oklahoma statutes do not require a defendant to have a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him as long as he understands the nature of them. ¶ 17 In his second supplemental claim of error, Petitioner contends the trial court’s finding of feasibility to hold a retrospective competency hearing was erroneous because rather than holding a feasibility hearing, the trial court relied on

1998Likewise, we decline to reconsider our holding in Tate v. State, 896 P.2d 1182 (Okl.Cr.1995) and Lambert v. State, 888 P.2d 494 (Okl.Cr.1994), where we rejected the argument that the Oklahoma statutes do not require a defendant to have a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him as long as he understands the nature of them. ¶ 17 In his second supplemental claim of error, Petitioner contends the trial court's finding of feasibility to hold a retrospective competency hearing was erroneous because rather than holding a feasibility hearing, the trial court relied on

1998Likewise, we decline to reconsider our holding in Tate v. State, 896 P.2d 1182 (Okl.Cr.1995) and Lambert v. State, 888 P.2d 494 (Okl.Cr.1994), where we rejected the argument that the Oklahoma statutes do not require a defendant to have a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him as long as he understands the nature of them. ¶ 17 In his second supplemental claim of error, Petitioner contends the trial court’s finding of feasibility to hold a retrospective competency hearing was erroneous because rather than holding a feasibility hearing, the trial court relied on

1997However, this Court remanded Appellant's case pursuant to Cooper v. Oklahoma, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) to determine if a retrospective competency hearing could be held; and, if so, to hold such a hearing using a constitutionally correct burden of proof.

1997However, this Court remanded Appellant's case pursuant to Cooper v. Oklahoma, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) to determine if a retrospective competency hearing could be held; and, if so, to hold such a hearing using a constitutionally correct burden of proof.

1997Cr.1995); Malone v. State, 876 P.2d 707, 713 (Okl.Cr.1994). [70] LaFevers, 897 P.2d 292, 306 (Okl.Cr.1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 820 , 133 L.Ed.2d 763 (1996); McGregor, 885 P.2d at 1381 . [71] Testimony at the retrospective competency hearing identified this as organic brain damage in areas of the brain which had atrophied or died due to poor blood circulation. [72] Pugh v. State, 781 P.2d 843, 843-44 (Okl.Cr. 1989). [73] Bryan unsuccessfully requested an instruction on murder in the second degree, depraved mind.

1997Cr.1995); Malone v. State, 876 P.2d 707, 713 (Okl.Cr.1994). [70] LaFevers, 897 P.2d 292, 306 (Okl.Cr.1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 820 , 133 L.Ed.2d 763 (1996); McGregor, 885 P.2d at 1381 . [71] Testimony at the retrospective competency hearing identified this as organic brain damage in areas of the brain which had atrophied or died due to poor blood circulation. [72] Pugh v. State, 781 P.2d 843, 843-44 (Okl.Cr. 1989). [73] Bryan unsuccessfully requested an instruction on murder in the second degree, depraved mind.

1997However, the evidence presented at trial, and Bryan's defense of innocence, did not support such an instruction. [74] 698 P.2d 940, 941-42 (Okl.Cr.1985). [75] 650 P.2d 904, 906-08 (Okl.Cr.1982). [76] Cargle v. State, 909 P.2d 806, 832 (Okl.Cr. 1995). [77] Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 774 , 107 S.Ct. 3114, 3120-21 , 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987) (evidence might open record to violent tendencies, prior convictions, lack of remorse); Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (evidence of violent prior convictions, ability to commit crime). [78] In Supplemental Propositi

1997However, the evidence presented at trial, and Bryan's defense of innocence, did not support such an instruction. [74] 698 P.2d 940, 941-42 (Okl.Cr.1985). [75] 650 P.2d 904, 906-08 (Okl.Cr.1982). [76] Cargle v. State, 909 P.2d 806, 832 (Okl.Cr. 1995). [77] Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 774 , 107 S.Ct. 3114, 3120-21 , 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987) (evidence might open record to violent tendencies, prior convictions, lack of remorse); Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (evidence of violent prior convictions, ability to commit crime). [78] In Supplemental Propositi

1997However, the evidence presented at trial, and Bryan's defense of innocence, did not support such an instruction. [74] 698 P.2d 940, 941-42 (Okl.Cr.1985). [75] 650 P.2d 904, 906-08 (Okl.Cr.1982). [76] Cargle v. State, 909 P.2d 806, 832 (Okl.Cr. 1995). [77] Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 774 , 107 S.Ct. 3114, 3120-21 , 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987) (evidence might open record to violent tendencies, prior convictions, lack of remorse); Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (evidence of violent prior convictions, ability to commit crime). [78] In Supplemental Propositi

1997However, the evidence presented at trial, and Bryan's defense of innocence, did not support such an instruction. [74] 698 P.2d 940, 941-42 (Okl.Cr.1985). [75] 650 P.2d 904, 906-08 (Okl.Cr.1982). [76] Cargle v. State, 909 P.2d 806, 832 (Okl.Cr. 1995). [77] Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 774 , 107 S.Ct. 3114, 3120-21 , 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987) (evidence might open record to violent tendencies, prior convictions, lack of remorse); Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (evidence of violent prior convictions, ability to commit crime). [78] In Supplemental Propositi

1995Although this list may not be as lengthy as the list of available evidence/witnesses discussed in Clayton, 840 P.2d at 25 , the bottom line is that competent evidence existed from which a jury could make a meaningful determination of appellant’s competency at the time of his 1987 trial.

1995Although this list may not be as lengthy as the list of available evidence/witnesses discussed in Clayton, 840 P.2d at 25 , the bottom line is that competent evidence existed from which a jury could make a meaningful determination of appellant's competency at the time of his 1987 trial.

1992Wolfe v. State, 778 P.2d 932 (Okl.Cr.1989); Thomas v. State, 777 P.2d 399 (Okl.Cr.1989); Kelly v. State, 735 P.2d 566 (Okl.Cr.1987); Scott v. State, 730 P.2d 7 (Okl.Cr.1986), are cited as authority for this proposition.

1992He asserts that although he did not raise this issue on direct appeal, he should be allowed to raise the issue now because of intervening law, that being Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987).

1992He asserts that although he did not raise this issue on direct appeal, he should be allowed to raise the issue now because of intervening law, that being Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987).

1992Wolfe v. State, 778 P.2d 932 (Okl.Cr.1989); Thomas v. State, 777 P.2d 399 (Okl.Cr.1989); Kelly v. State, 735 P.2d 566 (Okl.Cr.1987); Scott v. State, 730 P.2d 7 (Okl.Cr.1986), are cited as authority for this proposition.

1992Wolfe v. State, 778 P.2d 932 (Okl.

1992Id., citing United States v. Makris, 535 F.2d 899 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 954 , 97 S.Ct. 1598 , 51 L.Ed.2d 803 (1977). 1 In the present case, the trial court found that the following evidence/witnesses were available at a retrospective competency hearing: Various records as to examinations by medical personnel, psychologists, jail personnel, and witnesses of appellant at the time he stood trial; the judge who presided over appellant’s trial; trial counsel; Dr. Sherman; Thomas A. Goodman, M.D., and Diane Williamson, Ph.D., who each conducted psychological evaluations of appellant

1992Id., citing United States v. Makris, 535 F.2d 899 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 954 , 97 S.Ct. 1598 , 51 L.Ed.2d 803 (1977). [1] In the present case, the trial court found that the following evidence/witnesses were available at a retrospective competency hearing: Various records as to examinations by medical personnel, psychologists, jail personnel, and witnesses of appellant at the time he stood trial; the judge who presided over appellant's trial; trial counsel; Dr. Sherman; Thomas A. Goodman, M.D., and Diane Williamson, Ph.D., who each conducted psychological evaluations of appellan

1992Id., citing United States v. Makris, 535 F.2d 899 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 954 , 97 S.Ct. 1598 , 51 L.Ed.2d 803 (1977). 1 In the present case, the trial court found that the following evidence/witnesses were available at a retrospective competency hearing: Various records as to examinations by medical personnel, psychologists, jail personnel, and witnesses of appellant at the time he stood trial; the judge who presided over appellant’s trial; trial counsel; Dr. Sherman; Thomas A. Goodman, M.D., and Diane Williamson, Ph.D., who each conducted psychological evaluations of appellant

1992Id., citing United States v. Makris, 535 F.2d 899 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 954 , 97 S.Ct. 1598 , 51 L.Ed.2d 803 (1977). [1] In the present case, the trial court found that the following evidence/witnesses were available at a retrospective competency hearing: Various records as to examinations by medical personnel, psychologists, jail personnel, and witnesses of appellant at the time he stood trial; the judge who presided over appellant's trial; trial counsel; Dr. Sherman; Thomas A. Goodman, M.D., and Diane Williamson, Ph.D., who each conducted psychological evaluations of appellan

1992Id., citing United States v. Makris, 535 F.2d 899 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 954 , 97 S.Ct. 1598 , 51 L.Ed.2d 803 (1977). 1 In the present case, the trial court found that the following evidence/witnesses were available at a retrospective competency hearing: Various records as to examinations by medical personnel, psychologists, jail personnel, and witnesses of appellant at the time he stood trial; the judge who presided over appellant’s trial; trial counsel; Dr. Sherman; Thomas A. Goodman, M.D., and Diane Williamson, Ph.D., who each conducted psychological evaluations of appellant

1992Id., citing United States v. Makris, 535 F.2d 899 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 954 , 97 S.Ct. 1598 , 51 L.Ed.2d 803 (1977). [1] In the present case, the trial court found that the following evidence/witnesses were available at a retrospective competency hearing: Various records as to examinations by medical personnel, psychologists, jail personnel, and witnesses of appellant at the time he stood trial; the judge who presided over appellant's trial; trial counsel; Dr. Sherman; Thomas A. Goodman, M.D., and Diane Williamson, Ph.D., who each conducted psychological evaluations of appellan