*1 PER CURIAM. appeal of con- is from robbery, of D.C. violation
viction upon the and is rested Code § now to claimed evidence admission Reginald Adams, pro John se. of all In inadmissible. view have been David C. U. S. think of the case we the circumstances Prank Nebeker and Dаvid of our dis- for the exercise it is not one pleadings were on the permitted Fed.R. Rule cretion respondent. Crim.P. Judge, Bazelon, Chief Affirmed. Wilbur K. Miller McGowan, Cir- cuit
Order petitioner’s peti- On consideration of prosecute appeal tion for an leave prepayment costs, respond- opposition thereto, petition- ent’s and of Reginald ADAMS, Petitioner, John reply, er’s it is Orderеd the court that the afore- UNITED STATES Respondent. said is denied. Misc. 2339. Judge (dissenting). BAZELON, Chief Court of United States relief with- The District denied Court District of Columbiа Circuit. proceedings under in these out leave to and denied 28 U.S.C. § Rehearing pauperis. Petition for en Banc Denied Nov. cоurt. from this now seeks indigent petitioner appears our that
has a addiction and the time to have been at alleged offenses; that he was narcotics by a Harrison Act convicted of violations jury raise an that he unaware wished defense; that he was unable present he was both this defense because pay psychiatric unable to services repeated himself, and unsuccessful during trial, efforts, before period observa committed for a of mental appointed public expense; tion оbtaining refused to assist counsel expert merits of evaluation judges defense; that the two district sought whom an order for from him allowеd mitment and observation psychiatric interview limited brief competency question of his to the narrow trial;1 appel apрointed to stand adequate responsibility, inquiry competency Generally, into criminal into competent inquiry a defendant than аn evidence that more limited *2 549 issue on late counsel did not raise the Petitioner’s of addiction recognized presented symptom direct the District Court a appeal.2 Since of seri- hearing, a denied relief without it must ous mental disorder.5 Since in- he was digent, have determined that “the motion and the Government was the diagnostic of conclu files and records the case feasible sоurce of the resources sively necessary prisoner examination; show that the is entitled for mental he 3 private psychiatric to no could relief.” no more afford diagnosis private than he could defense defense, as Matters mental increasing recognition counsel.6 is There crime, condition at the time are that distinctions worked wealth have ordinarily not availablе on collateral place justice.7 no in the administration point attack.4 But here the at issue is be, may course, point sоme insanity petitioner’s not the merits of may the refuse further defense, petitioner but whether was de- indigent making assistance to an оn its constitutionally nied a fair trial. The resources, as, perhaps, when gist of his attack that his is de- patently frivolous,8 claim is or is revealed was, face, on its fense that not frivolous and to be without substantial merit after consequently, indigent, anas he was preliminary inquiry. relevant can But it constitutionally entitled to assist- more longer request no be said that the of a exploring ance he than in received drug addict for a mental examination evaluating this As defense. the matter patently frivolous.9 Judicial failure to stands, claims, hе was cut off from the adequate inquiry order into Adams’ opportunity establishing a meritorious may mental condition have been as sеrious defense and hence denied a fair trial. rights a denial of constitutional as This claim raises an issue which is not plainly appoint frivolous on collateral attack. refusal counsel.10Alternative- may support findings concerning 9, 1964; Fine, Indigent not re & Goldstein sponsibility. States, Accused, Psychiatrist, Winn v. United 106 and the In U.S.App.D.C. (1959); sanity Defense, 133, 270 F.2d 110 326 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1061 Report States, (1962); Williams v. United 102 Poverty 51, 19, 55 nn. General’s 250 F.2d 23 Committee оn (1957); States, nn. 4-10 Administration oe Blunt v. United Crim U.S.App.D.C. 266, 23, (1963); inal Justice 100 244 F.2d Criminal 275 n. see Jus 55, Act, 455, 20, (1957). Aug. 364 tice 3 n. P.L. enacted 23 Often the ex 88— 1964, determining 3006A(e). § 18 amination U.S.C. conductеd petency to stand trial so limited Illinois, 12, 7. Griffin v. 351 U.S. 76 S.Ct. depth toas be of doubtful val Coppedge 585, (1956); 100 v. L.Ed. 891 any purpose. ue for States, 438, 369 United 917, U.S. 82 S.Ct. (1962); assignеd 8 21 v. 2. L.Ed.2d Gideon the denial re- Wainwright, 792, quest 335, pro 372 U.S. 83 S.Ct. for commitment as error (1933). ap- se to this court for peal from his convic- Compare opinions Coppedge 8. v. tion. States, supra. United 3. § 28 U.S.O. States, U.S.App.D.C. Brown United 118 See, e.g., Bishop States, v. United 96 —, (1964); F.2d 822 331 Jackson U.S.App.D.C. 117, 119 nn. States, U.S.App.D.C. —, 118 582, 2, nn. on other rev’d Aug. (sep decided grounds, 350 U.S. S.Ct. arate The United States At (1956). torney L.Ed. 835 agreement has indicated his requested H.RJR.ep.Nо. failure to afford an addict Cong., 84th 2d Sess. pre-trial mental examination is reason California, (1956); Robinson for a new vacate сonviction trial. 667 n. 8 L.Ed. Appellee’s Report motion to remand for a new (1962); Final 2d 758 trial, Langley States, Advisory No. President’s Commission 18455, granted Sеpt. 9, Drug Narcotic Abuse 54 cases cited note 9. infra supra. Fine, & Com Goldstein pare supra; Winn v. Cf. Leach v. April U.S.App. —, decided Mitсhell v. United drop in- ly, decision if counsel’s sufficient
quiry reached was consideration, question exploration and effective rendered whether he
would arise *3 therefore re- A assistance11. petitioner is quired whether determine so, and, there was if whether for decisiоns the various sufficient basis to abandon and counsel court
made insanity issue.12 the grant petition for leave I this would and order the why case the show cause hearing. for should not remanded (appointed Mr. Arthur Hanson B. court), Washington, C., appel- D.
lant. Atty., Mr. David Asst. U. S. RANSOM, Appellant, K. Alexander with whom Messrs. David C. Barry U. S. Frank Nebeker STATES of UNITED Sidman, were Appellee. brief, appellee. No. 18555. Circuit Senior Prettyman, Stаtes Court Judge, and Fahy Circuit Bastían, Circuit. of Columbia District Argued Sept. Decided
Appellant was convicted on both counts charging indictment, house- one breaking, 1801, and D.C.Code § grand larceny, 22 D.C.Code § other given general under He was sentence Act, 18 Youth Corrections the Federal press 5010(b).1 He does not U.S.C. § supra, connection, see note 12. In this F.2d where D.C. States, supra, appeal. and Mitchеll v. Cf. raised on direct issue was Taylor McCollum, (5th 1964); Bush Cir. portion of sentence May F.Supp. N.D.Tex., decided as follows: reads Ajuuged the defendant Is custody hereby to the committed Willis rep- his authorized (1959) General or 211, 218, pursuant denied, to Section (dissenting opinion), resentative cert. pro- under Title 18 U.S.Oode Youth of the Federal Corrections visions Plummer v. United Act. (dissenting (1958)