Opinion — Alexzene Hamilton, as Natural Mother and Next Friend to James Edward Smith v. Texas

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ALEXZENE HAMILTON v. TEXAS

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT

OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

No. 89-7838. Decided October 9, 1990

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN joins,

concurring.

This petition for a writ of certiorari raises important, re-

curring questions of law that should be decided by this Court.

These questions concern the standards that the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment mandates in a hearing

to determine whether a death row inmate is competent to

waive his constitutional righi to cha!lenge his conviction and

sentence and whether he has made a knowing and intelligent

waiver of this right.

James Edward Smith was convicted of murder and sen-

tenced to death in Harris County, Texas, in 1984. Smith had

a substantial history of mental illness, and his mental difficul-

ties prompted a finding by the Texas trial court that he was

not competent to represent himself on appeal. Pet. for

Cert., Exh. 2, p. 13, Exhs. 4-8, 10-12. After his conviction,

Smith vacillated between forceful insistence on prosecuting

his own appeal and equally forceful insistence on abandoning

any challenge to his conviction or his sentence. Pet. for

Cert., Exh. 2, pp. 10-11, Exh. 11, p. 2.

Petitioner is Smith’s natural mother. Proceeding as

Smith’s “next friend,” she attempted to establish her stand-

ing to litigate on her son’s behalf and to have his execution

stayed until his competence was established after a full ad-

versarial :earing. She was unsuccessful. On May 23, 1990,

without notice to petitioner, the Texas trial court held a

nonadversarial hearing, made a finding that Smith was com-

ad

2 HAMILTON v. TEXAS

petent to make a decision regarding his execution, and set his

execution for 12:01 A. M. on June 26, 1990. Pet. for Cert.,

Exh. 3.

On June 22, over the dissent of Justice Teague,’ the Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed petitioner’s “Emer-

gency Application for Stay of Execution and Objections to

Trial Court’s Prior Proceedings.” Ex Parte Hamilton,

No. 18,380-02 (Tex. Crim. App., June 22, 1990) (en banc)

(per curiam) (order denying application for stay). On June

24, petitioner filed in this Court her petition for a writ of cer-

tiorari and her application for a stay of Smith’s execution.

Four Members of the Court voted to grant certiorari,’ and to

stay the execution. Nevertheless, the stay application was

denied, and Smith was executed on schedule.

Smitn’s execution obviously mooted this case. The Court

has therefore properly denied the petition for a writ of certio-

rari. This denial, however, does not evidence any lack of

merit in the petition;* instead, the reason for the denial em-

'“Teague, J., notwithstanding that such might, but probably only will

cause a slight delay in carrying out applicant’s obvious desire to carry into

effect his long held death wish, as well as his strong belief that he will be

reincarnated after he is killed, but believing that this Court, at least implic-

itly, has ruled that in a ~ase such as this one, where the reasonable prob-

ability that the defendant ‘s not competent to request that he be put to a

premature death, or, to pu it another way, to commit legal suicide through

the hands of others, has been raised, it is necessary for the trial court to

conduct a ‘full adversarial hearing’ on the issue. Given the possible favor-

able evidence now available, a ‘full adversarial hearing’ should now be con-

ducted in this cause. See Ex parte Jordan, 758 S. W. 2d 250 (Tex. Cr.

App. 1988). Also see Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399, 106 S. Ct. 2595,

92 L. Ed. 2d 335 (1986).” Ex Parte Hamilton, No. 18,380-02 (Tex. Crim.

App., June 22, 1990) (Teague, J., dissenting from order denying applica-

tion for stay).

*See Hamilton v. Texas, 497 U. S. —— (1990) (Brennan, J., dissenting

from denial of application for stay).

"See Singleton v. Commissoner, 439 U. S. 940, 942 (1978) (opinion of

STEVENS, J., respecting denial of petition for writ of certiorari).

HAMILTON wv. TEXAS 3

phasizes the importance of confronting on the merits the sub-

stantial questions that were raised in this case.

JUSTICE SOUTER took no part in the consideration or deci-

sion of this motion and this petition.