Albert Russell Laudermilk v. California Department of Corrections and W. T. Stone, Superintendent

I dissent.

The sole point of any importance involved on this appeal is whether there was presented to the trial court any substantial evidence of the insanity of appellant so as to entitle him to the hearing required by section 1368 of the Penal Code. 1 If such evidence was produced, no matter how strong the conflicting evidence may have been and no matter how weak was the evidence on behalf of appellant, provided only it was substantial, the trial judge was required to order a present sanity hearing as a matter of law.

*1280 This was not always the California law. For many years the California courts had held that the trial court on a motion under section 1368, and on conflicting evidence, had discretion to determine whether it had a “doubt” of sanity, and if not to deny the motion. (See People v. Merkouris, 52 Cal.2d 672 , 344 P.2d 1 , cert. den. 361 U.S. 943 , 80 S.Ct. 411 , 4 L.Ed.2d 364 ; People v. Lindsey, 56 Cal.2d 324 , 14 Cal.Rptr. 678 , 363 P.2d 910 .) Under the compulsion of Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 , this court in People v. Pennington, 66 Cal.2d 508 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 374 , 426 P.2d 942 , revised the rule of the Merkouris and Lindsey…

This appeal is the latest in a long series of attempts by petitioner Lauder-milk to secure his release from the custody of the California authorities where he is now serving a life sentence following his plea of guilty to a charge of murder in the first degree. The district court has denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus and we affirm.

A detailed recitation of the factual background here is unnecessary. Because of our disposition, it is sufficient to note that Laudermilk’s sole contention here is that his plea of guilty is invalid under Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), since there was no pretrial hearing as to his competency to stand trial or enter a plea of guilty.

This question has been given substantial consideration by other courts before reaching this court. Laudermilk’s appeal was first heard by a California District Court of Appeal which, by a 3-1 vote, affirmed his conviction in January, 1967, in an unreported decision.

This case was then affirmed by the Supreme Court of California, sitting en banc, with Justice Peters dissenting. People v. Laudermilk, 67 Cal.2d 272 , 61 Cal.Rptr. 644 , 431 P.2d 228 (1967). The United States…

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent. The state court judge accepted Laudermilk’s plea of guilty to a charge of first degree murder knowing that Laudermilk had recently been confined in different hospitals for the mentally ill and having been advised that Laudermilk was then uncooperative with his own attorney. One of the medical reports before the judge, that of a Dr. Hoffman, recited the doctor’s opinion to the effect that Lauder-milk was afflicted with a severely paranoid personality and should be given psychiatric treatment. Despite all this information, the trial judge accepted Laudermilk’s plea and ordered him confined to prison for life without conducting a sanity hearing to determine whether Laudermilk was mentally competent to enter the plea.

I cannot reconcile the result reached by my Brothers with Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 (1966), and my views thoroughly coincide with those of Mr. Justice Peters of the California Supreme Court, set forth in his dissenting opinion in People v. Laudermilk, 67 Cal.2d 272, 288-296 , 61 Cal.Rptr. 644, 655-660 , 431 P.2d 228, 239-244 , (1967), cert. denied, sub. nom. Laudermilk v. California, 393 U.S. 861 , 89 S.Ct. 139…

439 F.2d 1278 Albert Russell LAUDERMILK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and W. T. Stone, Superintendent, Respondents-Appellees. No. 25173. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 16, 1971. Albert Ressell Laudermilk, in pro. per. Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mark L. Christiansen, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Diego, Cal., for appellees. Before DUNIWAY, ELY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 This appeal is the latest in a long series of attempts by petitioner Laudermilk to secure his release from the custody of the California authorities where he is now serving a life sentence following his plea of guilty to a charge of murder in the first degree. The district court has denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus and we affirm. 2 A detailed recitation of the factual background here is unnecessary. Because of our disposition, it is sufficient to note that Laudermilk's sole contention here is that his plea of guilty is invalid under Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), since there was no pretrial hearing as to his competency to stand trial or enter a plea of guilty. 3…