Russell Aimes Drendel v. United States

403 F.2d 55, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4924
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedNovember 12, 1968
Docket26237_1
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 403 F.2d 55 (Russell Aimes Drendel v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Russell Aimes Drendel v. United States, 403 F.2d 55, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4924 (5th Cir. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Russell Aimes Drendel, the appellant, is under indictment for bank robbery, and is presently a patient at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri. He was committed to that institution September 14, 1966, under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4246, upon adjudication that he was incompetent to stand trial.

On January 23, 1968, the appellant petitioned the District Court for a hearing to determine whether he is permanently incompetent to stand trial, since he desires to qualify for institutionalization in a state mental hospital as can be authorized under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4246-4248. See Martin v. Settle, D.C.W.D.Mo. 1961, 192 F.Supp. 156; Royal v. Settle, D.C.W.D.Mo. 1959, 192 F.Supp. 176:

The District Court denied relief on the grounds that the petition was premature. The court below observed that the psychiatric staff of the hospital had not up to that time recommended a § 4248 hearing. The court stated in the order denying relief that the Director of the Medical Center has advised that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, such a hearing is not recommended until at least eighteen months have elapsed under the § 4246 commitment, in order to give the psychiatric staff sufficient opportunity to observe the patient.

The Director advised the District Court that reevaluation of the appellant’s condition was due in March, 1968, and that in the report based thereupon the staff would make appropriate recommendations to the court. The District Court stated in the order denying relief on grounds of prematurity that “[w]hen such report has been received the Court will make the disposition warranted.”

We find no error in the judgment of the District Court which accordingly is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Beidler
417 F. Supp. 608 (M.D. Florida, 1976)
Cook v. Ciccone
312 F. Supp. 822 (W.D. Missouri, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
403 F.2d 55, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-aimes-drendel-v-united-states-ca5-1968.