Paul Lawrence Bryant v. United States

Eighth Circuit

Paul Lawrence Bryant v. United States

468 F.2d 812, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6879

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 3, 1972

Docket72-1364

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 468 F.2d 812 (Paul Lawrence Bryant v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paul Lawrence Bryant v. United States, 468 F.2d 812, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6879 (8th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paul Lawrence Bryant appeals from a denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion to vacate his 20-year sentence imposed following his conviction for kidnapping (18 U.S.C. Secs. 1201, 875 and 371). His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Tasby v. United States, 451 F.2d 394 (CA8 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 922, 92 S.Ct. 1787, 32 L.Ed.2d 122 (1972).

Bryant contends the District Court erred in not holding a hearing on his claim that the trial judge should have ordered the appellant to be examined prior to trial by a qualified psychiatrist for a determination of mental competency.

Bryant’s contention of mental incompetency encompasses both his com *813 petency at the time of the offense and at trial. The District Court was correct in determining that Bryant was not entitled to a hearing on the allegation regarding his competency at the time of the crime, a matter which cannot be made the basis for a Sec. 2255 motion. Wheeler v. United States, 340 F.2d 119, 121 (CA8 1965) and Taylor v. United States, 282 F.2d 16, 21 (CA8 1960). Competency to stand trial, however, may be raised in a Sec. 2255 motion where the issue of sanity was not raised and determined at the trial resulting in the petitioner’s conviction. Butler v. United States, 384 F.2d 522 (CA8 1967) and Wheeler, supra, 340 F.2d at 121. The motion, of course, must constitute more than bald charges or self-serving declarations of incompetency and contain factual support as a basis for the claim. Hayes v. United States, 305 F.2d 540, 543 (CA8 1962) and Burrow v. United States, 301 F.2d 442, 443 (CA8 1962).

The sole evidence in the record concerning Bryant’s competence consists of a pretrial motion for funds to enable Bryant to be examined by a psychiatrist for a determination of mental competency. Bryant’s mother testified that he had a mental problem and that other persons had stated Bryant needed psychiatric treatment. The trial court authorized $250.00 for Bryant to be examined. The examination apparently was never made and the trial court subsequently denied a motion for a continuance made on the ground that Bryant had not yet been examined by a psychiatrist.

With the above constituting the entire record concerning Bryant’s claim of mental ineompetency at the time of his trial, we cannot agree that the question is. conclusively resolved against Bryant by the files and records so as to make a hearing thereon unnecessary. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. Accordingly, we remand this matter for a hearing on his motion to vacate with respect to Bryant’s allegation that he was mentally incompetent at the time of his trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Paul Lawrence Bryant appeals from a denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion to vacate his 20-year sentence imposed following his conviction for kidnapping (18 U.S.C. Secs. 1201, 875 and 371). His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Tasby v. United States, 451 F.2d 394 (CA8 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 922, 92 S.Ct. 1787, 32 L.Ed.2d 122 (1972).

Bryant contends the District Court erred in not holding a hearing on his claim that the trial judge should have ordered the appellant to be examined prior to trial by a qualified psychiatrist for a determination of mental competency.

Bryant’s contention of mental incompetency encompasses both his com *813 petency at the time of the offense and at trial. The District Court was correct in determining that Bryant was not entitled to a hearing on the allegation regarding his competency at the time of the crime, a matter which cannot be made the basis for a Sec. 2255 motion. Wheeler v. United States, 340 F.2d 119, 121 (CA8 1965) and Taylor v. United States, 282 F.2d 16, 21 (CA8 1960). Competency to stand trial, however, may be raised in a Sec. 2255 motion where the issue of sanity was not raised and determined at the trial resulting in the petitioner’s conviction. Butler v. United States, 384 F.2d 522 (CA8 1967) and Wheeler, supra, 340 F.2d at 121. The motion, of course, must constitute more than bald charges or self-serving declarations of incompetency and contain factual support as a basis for the claim. Hayes v. United States, 305 F.2d 540, 543 (CA8 1962) and Burrow v. United States, 301 F.2d 442, 443 (CA8 1962).

The sole evidence in the record concerning Bryant’s competence consists of a pretrial motion for funds to enable Bryant to be examined by a psychiatrist for a determination of mental competency. Bryant’s mother testified that he had a mental problem and that other persons had stated Bryant needed psychiatric treatment. The trial court authorized $250.00 for Bryant to be examined. The examination apparently was never made and the trial court subsequently denied a motion for a continuance made on the ground that Bryant had not yet been examined by a psychiatrist.

With the above constituting the entire record concerning Bryant’s claim of mental ineompetency at the time of his trial, we cannot agree that the question is. conclusively resolved against Bryant by the files and records so as to make a hearing thereon unnecessary. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. Accordingly, we remand this matter for a hearing on his motion to vacate with respect to Bryant’s allegation that he was mentally incompetent at the time of his trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 F.2d 812, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-lawrence-bryant-v-united-states-ca8-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack