From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Westbrook v. Arizona

U.S.
May 2, 1966
384 U.S. 150 (1966)

Summary

finding of competency to stand trial is not dispositive of issue of competency to waive counsel

Summary of this case from State v. Imus

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA.

No. 1250, Misc.

Decided May 2, 1966.

The question whether in the circumstances of this case a hearing on the accused's competence to stand trial was sufficient to determine his competence to waive his right to the assistance of counsel, or whether the trial judge had a further protecting duty, should be re-examined in light of Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375.

Certiorari granted; 99 Ariz. 30, 406 P.2d 388, vacated and remanded.

W. Edward Morgan for petitioner.

Darrell F. Smith, Attorney General of Arizona, and Paul G. Rosenblatt, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.


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; Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506.

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. 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.


Summaries of

Westbrook v. Arizona

U.S.
May 2, 1966
384 U.S. 150 (1966)

finding of competency to stand trial is not dispositive of issue of competency to waive counsel

Summary of this case from State v. Imus

granting motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari

Summary of this case from United States v. Wright

In Westbrook, a two-paragraph per curiam opinion, we vacated the lower court's judgment affirming the petitioner's conviction, because there had been "a hearing on the issue of [the petitioner's] competence to stand trial," but "no hearing or inquiry into the issue of his competence to waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel."

Summary of this case from Godinez v. Moran

comparing competency to stand trial with competency to waive counsel

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Betancourt-Arretuche

In Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966), the Supreme Court held that a higher degree of competency was required to waive counsel than to stand trial.

Summary of this case from Evans v. Raines

In Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966), petitioner had received a hearing on the issue of his competency to stand trial, but there did not appear to have been a hearing into his competence to waive counsel.

Summary of this case from United States ex Rel. McGough v. Hewitt

In Westbrook, supra, although the state court had, after hearing, concluded that the defendant was mentally competent to stand trial, the Supreme Court deemed it essential that a further "inquiry into the issue of his competence to waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel..."

Summary of this case from Sieling v. Eyman

In Westbrook, that same Arizona determination was held insufficient for waiver of counsel purposes. If such a determination is deficient on the facts of Westbrook, we think a fortiori it is a deficient basis, for upholding a plea of guilty.

Summary of this case from Sieling v. Eyman

In Westbrook, the Supreme Court held in a brief per curiam opinion that there is a distinction between a defendant's competence to waive the right to counsel at trial and his competence to stand trial.

Summary of this case from Coronado v. Lefevre

In Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966), the Supreme Court held that a trial court's determination of a defendant's competency to assist counsel in his defense did not suffice as a finding that he was also competent to waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel.

Summary of this case from Lewis v. Morris

In Westbrook the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Arizona to re-examine in light of Pate the question whether the trial court had fulfilled its "protecting duty" in the trial of the defendant held three years before Pate was decided.

Summary of this case from Etier v. Peyton

In Westbrook, a two-paragraph per curiam opinion, the Court had vacated a judgment affirming the petitioner's conviction because there had been "a hearing on the issue of [the petitioner's] competence to stand trial" but "no hearing or inquiry into the issue of his competence to waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel."

Summary of this case from Edwards v. State

In Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966), though, the conviction of a pro se defendant adjudged competent to stand trial was vacated, because the record failed to show the trial court fulfilled its "protecting duty" by conducting an inquiry to determine that the defendant competently and intelligently waived his right to counsel.

Summary of this case from State v. Cooley

In Westbrook, the Supreme Court observed that while the "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."

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Barnes

In Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1960), the Supreme Court held that a pretrial hearing conducted to determine the defendant's competence to stand trial was not sufficient to determine his competence to waive the assistance of counsel.

Summary of this case from Willis v. United States

In Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150 (1966), the United States Supreme Court, in a short Per Curiam opinion, summarily reversed a conviction of a defendant who had been allowed to defend himself after he had been found competent to stand trial, saying: "Although the 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.

Summary of this case from Pickens v. State

In Westbrook, however, the question involved not only defendant's competence to waive his right to assistance of counsel but also his competence to "proceed, as he did, to conduct his own defense."

Summary of this case from People v. Heral

In Westbrook v Arizona (384 U.S. 150) for instance, the defendant was examined by three psychiatrists after he stated that he wished to defend himself.

Summary of this case from People v. Reason

In Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed. 429 (1966), a distinction is made between a finding of competency to stand trial and a finding of competency to waive constitutional rights.

Summary of this case from State v. Ellison

In Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966), the United States Supreme Court, in reversing the decision of this court in State v. Westbrook, 99 Ariz. 30, 406 P.2d 388 (1965), held that even though the court has properly found that the defendant was competent to stand trial, the court must also find further that the defendant was competent to waive his right to an attorney.

Summary of this case from State v. Decello

In Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966), defendant insisted upon representing himself.

Summary of this case from State v. Nicastro

stating defendant must not only desire to represent himself, but also be competent to waive his right to counsel; court is required to make a waiver determination

Summary of this case from State v. McLemore

In Westbrook, a one-page, per curiam decision, the United States Supreme Court remanded a case involving a pro se criminal defendant who had received a hearing on his competence to stand trial, but received no hearing on his competence to waive his right to counsel and to represent himself.

Summary of this case from State v. Drobel

In Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966), the Supreme Court implied that there is a distinction between the test for competence to stand trial and the test for competence to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, with the latter standard being more stringent.

Summary of this case from Ford v. State

In Westbrook, the defendant, charged with murdering the attorney representing him in a civil case, waived counsel and unsuccessfully defended himself.

Summary of this case from People v. Kessler
Case details for

Westbrook v. Arizona

Case Details

Full title:WESTBROOK v . ARIZONA

Court:U.S.

Date published: May 2, 1966

Citations

384 U.S. 150 (1966)
86 S. Ct. 1320

Citing Cases

People v. Burnett

[¶] . . . [A] mere routine inquiry — the asking of several standard questions followed by the signing of a…

Godinez v. Moran

Nor does the decision to waive counsel require an appreciably higher level of mental functioning than the…