Skip to content


Westbrook Vs. Arizona - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number384 U.S. 150
AppellantWestbrook
RespondentArizona
Excerpt:
..... syllabus the question whether, in the circumstances of this case, a hearing on the accused's competence to stand trial was sufficient to determine whether the trial judge had a further protecting duty should be reexamined in light of pate v. robinson, 383 u. s. 375 . certiorari granted; 99 ariz. 30, 406 p.2d 388, vacated and remanded. per curiam. 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.....
Judgment:
Westbrook v. Arizona - 384 U.S. 150 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150 (1966)

Westbrook v. Arizona

No. 1250 Misc.

Decided May 2, 1966

384 U.S. 150

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

Syllabus

The question whether, in the circumstances of this case, a hearing on the accused's competence to stand trial was sufficient to determine whether the trial judge had a further protecting duty should be reexamined in light of Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375 .

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

PER CURIAM.

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 , 304 U. S. 465 ; Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 506 .

Page 384 U. S. 151

From an independent examination of the record, we conclude that the question whether this "protecting duty" was fulfilled should be reexamined 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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //