U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART III— PRISONS AND PRISONERS › Chapter CHAPTER 313— OFFENDERS WITH MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT

18 U.S.C. § 4244

Hospitalization of a convicted person suffering from mental disease or defect

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Motion To Determine Present Mental Condition of Convicted Defendant.—A defendant found guilty of an offense, or the attorney for the Government, may, within ten days after the defendant is found guilty, and prior to the time the defendant is sentenced, file a motion for a hearing on the present mental condition of the defendant if the motion is supported by substantial information indicating that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect for the treatment of which he is in need of custody for care or treatment in a suitable facility. The court shall grant the motion, or at any time prior to the sentencing of the defendant shall order such a hearing on its own motion, if it is of the opinion that there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect for the treatment of which he is in need of custody for care or treatment in a suitable facility.(b)Psychiatric or Psychological Examination and Report.—Prior to the date of the hearing, the court may order that a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant be conducted, and that a psychiatric or psychological report be filed with the court, pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(b) and (c). In addition to the information required to be included in the psychiatric or psychological report pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(c), if the report includes an opinion by the examiners that the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect but that it is not such as to require his custody for care or treatment in a suitable facility, the report shall also include an opinion by the examiner concerning the sentencing alternatives that could best accord the defendant the kind of treatment he does need.(c)Hearing.—The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d).(d)Determination and Disposition.—If, after the hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect and that he should, in lieu of being sentenced to imprisonment, be committed to a suitable facility for care or treatment, the court shall commit the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall hospitalize the defendant for care or treatment in a suitable facility. Such a commitment constitutes a provisional sentence of imprisonment to the maximum term authorized by law for the offense for which the defendant was found guilty.(e)Discharge.—When the director of the facility in which the defendant is hospitalized pursuant to subsection (d) determines that the defendant has recovered from his mental disease or defect to such an extent that he is no longer in need of custody for care or treatment in such a facility, he shall promptly file a certificate to that effect with the clerk of the court that ordered the commitment. The clerk shall send a copy of the certificate to the defendant’s counsel and to the attorney for the Government. If, at the time of the filing of the certificate, the provisional sentence imposed pursuant to subsection (d) has not expired, the court shall proceed finally to sentencing and may modify the provisional sentence.(Added Sept. 7, 1949, ch. 535, § 1, 63 Stat. 686; amended Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 403(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2061.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–473 amended section generally, substituting “Hospitalization of a convicted person suffering from mental disease or defect” for “Mental incompetency after arrest and before trial” in section catchline, and substituting provisions relating to motion, examination and report, hearing, etc., to determine present mental condition of convicted defendant, for provisions relating to motion, examination, etc., to determine the mental competency of a person after arrest and before trial.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesSeparability

Act Sept. 7, 1949, ch. 535, § 4, 63 Stat. 688, provided that: “If any provision of Title 18, United States Code, sections 4244 to 4248, inclusive, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, the remainder of the said sections and the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.”

Use of Appropriations

Act Sept. 7, 1949, ch. 535, § 3, 63 Stat. 688, provided that: “The Attorney General may authorize the use of any unexpended balance of the appropriation for ‘Support of United States prisoners’ for carrying out the purposes of Title 18, United States Code, sections 4244 to 4248, inclusive, or in payment of any expenses incidental thereto and not provided for by other specific appropriations.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 707 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: United States v. Billy G. Byers
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Billy G. Byers (1984) cadc · cites it 9× “This is similar (though not identical) to the reasoning set forth in Whitlock , that no Fifth Amendment problem is presented as long as the statements are admitted on the question not of guilt, but of sanity — the dichotomy suggested by 18 U.S.C. § 4244 and Fed.R.Crim.P. 12.2(c).”
United States v. Jaime Ochoa Baldovinos (2006) ca4 · cites it 4× “The Butner physicians predicted that, after four months of treatment, Baldovinos would be restored to competency and could be finally sentenced under the Sentencing Guidelines, rather than provisionally sentenced, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244 (d), to a suitable facility for care…”
United States v. Benjamin General, A/K/A Barkim (2002) ca4 · cites it 3× “Our analysis of General’s challenge to his competency to be sentenced is governed *397 by 18 U.S.C.A. § 4244 (West 2000). Mason, 52 F.”
United States v. Marvin Arnesto Crews, Jr. (1986) ca10 · cites it 6× “aims that: (1) the prosecution failed to satisfy its burden to prove defendant was sane at the time of the alleged threat; (2) defendant's purported threat came within a psychotherapist-patient privilege; (3) the prosecution violated defendant’s First Amendment rights; (4) the…”
United States v. Gigante (1997) nyed · cites it 9× “1987)(discussing Congress’s decision to codify the standards of Dusky); see also 1 Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 196, at 719 (1982)(enactment of the original competency statute in 18 U.S.C. § 4244 and challenges to its constitutionality).”
Estelle v. Smith (1981) scotus · cites it 2× “See also 18 U. S. C. § 4244 ; Fed. Rule Crim. Proc.”
United States v. Richard L. Clark (1980) ca9 · cites it 6× “Two local psychiatrists thereafter examined appellant — one on August 26, 1975 and one on September 24, 1975 — after which a competency hearing was held pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244 before a United States Magistrate.”
United States v. Javier Izquierdo (2006) ca11 · cites it 3× “7 More importantly, the competency statute in Makris II, 18 U.S.C. § 4244 , was a *1278 different statute with different language than the competency statute at issue here.”
United States v. Holley (1984) cma · cites it 12× “II WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY THE ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY FROM THREE PROSECUTION EXPERT WITNESSES WHICH WAS HEARSAY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 31(b), UCMJ, 18 U.S.C. § 4244 *363 AND THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS, U.”
United States v. Ronald E. Veatch (1982) ca9 · cites it 4× “The Government expressed no objection, and the motion to have Veatch examined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244 was granted. Veatch was transferred to Springfield, Missouri, for the examination and was returned from Springfield in July, 1979, with a finding that he was competent even…”
United States v. Michael Stanley Green A/K/A M. S. Greene, and Lulseged Tesfa A/K/A H. Teffa. Appeal of Lulseged Tesfa (1976) ca3 · cites it 5× “Consequently his trial was severed from that of his co-defendant, and he was sent to the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri (hereinafter Springfield), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244 . See United States v. Pogany, 465 F.”
United States v. Philip Prescott (1990) ca2 · cites it 4× “See 18 U.S.C. § 4244 (a) (1988). Sentencing was put over until completion of the hearing.”
Show all 707 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.