Opinion · Oklaw Oklahoma
ROWELL v. STATE, 1984 OK CR 47
676 P.2d 268
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Oklaw Oklahoma
- Jurisdiction
- Oklaw
- Date
- 1984-02-03
- Topic
- general
ROWELL v. STATE, 1984 OK CR 47 676 P.2d 268 RANDY ROWELL, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, APPELLEE. No. F-83-305.Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed ROWELL v. STATE, 1984 OK CR 47. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
ROWELL v. STATE,1984 OK CR 47
676 P.2d 268
RANDY ROWELL, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, APPELLEE.
No. F-83-305.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
February 3, 1984.
[1] ORDER DIRECTING HEARING
[2] The appellant, Randy Rowell, was convicted in the District Court of Creek County, Case No. CRF-82-8, of Burglary in the First Degree and Attempted Rape.
[3] After charges were filed against him, the appellant's attorney applied for a determination of the appellant's competency to stand trial. On a hearing held on July 1, 1982, the trial court determined that there was doubt as to the appellant's competency, and ordered the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health to examine the appellant. Pursuant to this order, the appellant was transported to Eastern State Hospital, wherein the examining psychiatrists determined that the appellant was competent, and so notified the district court. The appellant then moved for a competency hearing, said motion being denied by the trial court.
[4] The appellant now asserts that the denial of his motion for a competency hearing was error. We agree. While the court's action would be correct under Oklahoma's former procedure for determining competency, see,Colbert v. State,654 P.2d 624(Okla. Cr. 1982), that procedure, 22 O.S. 1981 §§ 1171-1174[22-1171-1174] [22-1171-1174], was repealed by Laws 1980, ch. 336. Under this State's new procedure, outlined in 22 O.S. 1981 §§ 1175.1-1175.8[22-1175.1-1175.8] 22-1175[1-1175.8], after the appropriate mental health specialists have made their determination of the accused's competency, the trial court shall conduct a hearing on the matter. 22 O.S. 1981 § 1175.4[22-1175.4](A).
[5] IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that this case is remanded to the District Court of Creek County for a determination of the appellant's mental competency at the time of trial, pursuant to the provisions of 22 O.S. 1981 § 1175.1-1175.8[22-1175.1-1175.8]. Furthermore, the district court is hereby directed to forward its findings of fact and conclusions of law to this Court so that this issue may be disposed of properly.
[6] IT IS SO ORDERED.
[7] WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 31st day of January, 1984.
[8] HEZ J. BUSSEY, P.J. TOM R. CORNISH, J. TOM BRETT, J.