Kevin Cook, alias v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/30/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-08-1507 Kevin Cook v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal PER from T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t (CC-08-266) Court CURIAM. The a p p e l l a n t , burglary, Kevin a violation C o o k , was c o n v i c t e d o f § 1 3 A - 7 - 5 , A l a . Code sentenced pursuant to the Habitual Felony imprisonment. This of first-degree appeal followed. 1 9 7 5 , a n d was Offender Act to l i f e CR-08-1507 The State's February evidence front door 1 on near later shirt o f f he off. S.W. the door, (R. with also things was that that he During grabbed a t Cook. leaving b while wanted injures an On individual came t h r o u g h the sitting to r i p o f f the T - s h i r t tried C o o k was i n r i p p i n g t h e Tto cut the holding shirt h e r down he t o " f - - - h e r " and " e - - h e r . " C o o k h i t S.W. him w i t h pants Cook t h e n l e f t he s a i d , and the struggle, Cook's ' " and "'I'm sustained as Cook, and a t t e m p t e d a lamp and she s t r u c k dog p.m., j u m p e d on h e r a s s h e was out a k n i f e testified 188-89.) the f o l l o w i n g : When C o o k was u n s u c c e s s f u l pulled repeating 9:00 identified of her residence, s h e was w e a r i n g . kept t o show 26, 2008, a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e v i c t i m , S.W., a sofa tended i n the head a candleholder. l e g and S.W. began S.W.'s throwing through the f r o n t door. be " ' I ' l l A s he white b a c k a f t e r you, you not through with to her head you y e t . ' " and cuts as (R. 191.) a result S.W. of the attack. Cook Barry d i d not t e s t i f y Collins, a at t r i a l . physician who The treated defense Cook called while he Dr. was S.W. t e s t i f i e d t h a t she thought t h a t she had s h u t and l o c k e d the f r o n t door. H o w e v e r , s h e s a i d t h a t i t was h a r d t o s h u t t h e d o o r b e c a u s e t h e h o u s e was b e i n g r e m o d e l e d a n d t h e door had been r e p l a c e d and r e p a i n t e d . 1 2 CR-08-1507 incarcerated testified examine that that Cook Cook tendencies Dr. a at the Talladega because had a Cook was history and t h a t stabilizer; on of he h a d b e e n Cogentin, Collins testified the jail understood knowledge offense, o r wrong. after that, he from concerning Dr. C o l l i n s treated Collins 3, 2 0 0 9 , t o watch. schizophrenia He with f o r those because He s t a t e d t h a t would However, not know stated bipolar disorders. offense, wrong. Cook's When mental effects Cook of the had taken i f C o o k was n o t the difference on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , at the time that the instant right suicide f o r depression h i s medications, right on A p r i l f o r the side those medications i n the past. between Dr. T h o r a z i n e , an a n t i p s y c h o t i c ; D e p a k o t e , T h o r a z i n e ; and P r o z a c taking jail. he was c a l l e d t o t h e j a i l Collins prescribed mood County he he e v a l u a t e d believed asked state Cook i n that i f he at the time had Cook any of the testified: " G i v e n h i s p r i o r h i s t o r y and t h a t s c h i z o p h r e n i a has less t h a n a 13 p e r c e n t remission rate, I would a s s u m e t h a t he w o u l d s t i l l be s c h i z o p h r e n i c b a s e d -¬ when I saw h i m t h a t d a y t h a t he s t i l l displayed f l i g h t s o f i d e a s b e i n g he was s c h i z o p h r e n i c on t h a t d a y , t h a t he h a d t h e same m e n t a l i l l n e s s t h a t h e ' s been d i a g n o s e d w i t h over t h e l a s t s e v e r a l years." 3 Dr. CR-08-1507 (R. 270.) When burglary, Dr. experiencing On a manic court Cook erred court-ordered about Collins appeal, circuit asked said that actions Cook may raises in one issue. denying his argues pretrial c o u r t d i d not abuse f o r a mental Section § been i t sdiscretion evaluation. 15-16-21, that motion The S t a t e pertinent evaluation He competency at the time of the o f f e n s e . request the episode. determine trial during have to the mental Cook's his the for a mental asserts that i n d e n y i n g Cook's 2 Ala. Code 1975, provides, in part: " I f any p e r s o n c h a r g e d w i t h any f e l o n y i s h e l d i n c o n f i n e m e n t under i n d i c t m e n t and t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l have r e a s o n a b l e ground to doubt h i s s a n i t y , t h e t r i a l o f s u c h p e r s o n f o r s u c h o f f e n s e s h a l l be suspended u n t i l the j u r y s h a l l i n q u i r e i n t o the f a c t o f s u c h s a n i t y . ... " Rule 11.2(a)(2), A l a . R. Crim. P., provides: " M e n t a l C o n d i t i o n a t Time o f O f f e n s e . I f the d e f e n d a n t has t i m e l y r a i s e d a d e f e n s e o f ' n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t ' e i t h e r by t h e e n t r y of a p l e a o r by f i l i n g a p r e - t r i a l motion p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 5 , t h e c o u r t on i t s own m o t i o n may We note t h a t , although Cook r a i s e d t h e i s s u e o f h i s c o m p e t e n c y t o s t a n d t r i a l b e l o w , he a p p e a r s t o h a v e a b a n d o n e d t h a t i s s u e on a p p e a l b e c a u s e h e c l a i m s e r r o r o n l y i n t h e t r i a l court's f a i l u r e to order a mental evaluation to determine h i s competency at the time of the commission of the o f f e n s e . 2 4 CR-08-1507 o r d e r , or the d e f e n d a n t , the d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y , o r t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y may move f o r an examination i n t o the defendant's mental c o n d i t i o n at the time of the o f f e n s e . " The U.S. United 68, 83 States (1985), d e f e n d a n t may be expert. court The Supreme C o u r t first i n Ake recognized v. that e n t i t l e d to the a s s i s t a n c e of a Oklahoma, an 470 indigent mental-health stated: "[W]hen a d e f e n d a n t d e m o n s t r a t e s t o the t r i a l judge t h a t h i s s a n i t y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e i s t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r at t r i a l , the S t a t e must, at a minimum, a s s u r e the d e f e n d a n t a c c e s s t o a c o m p e t e n t psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and a s s i s t i n e v a l u a t i o n , p r e p a r a t i o n , and p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n s e . T h i s i s n o t t o s a y , of course, that the indigent defendant has a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to choose a p s y c h i a t r i s t of h i s p e r s o n a l l i k i n g or to r e c e i v e funds to h i r e h i s own. Our concern i s t h a t the indigent defendant have access to a competent p s y c h i a t r i s t f o r the purpose we have discussed, and as i n the case of the provision of counsel we leave to the State the d e c i s i o n on how t o i m p l e m e n t t h i s r i g h t . " (Emphasis the Ake v. added.) Oklahoma Alabama courts have consistently followed holding: "[A]n indigent defendant is constitutionally e n t i t l e d to a p s y c h o l o g i c a l expert p r o v i d e d at the S t a t e ' s expense where the d e f e n d a n t d e m o n s t r a t e s to the t r i a l c o u r t t h a t h i s or her s a n i t y at the time of the o f f e n s e c o u l d be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r at t r i a l . A k e v . O k l a h o m a , 470 U.S. 68, 86, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1097-98, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). Where an e v a l u a t i o n by a psychologist or p s y c h i a t r i s t is c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y r e q u i r e d , s u c h an e x p e r t may be 5 CR-08-1507 a p p o i n t e d u n d e r R u l e 1 1 . 3 ( a ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P.; I s o m v . S t a t e , 488 S o . 2 d 1 2 , 13 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) . " R u s s e l l v. S t a t e , See 715 S o . 2 d 8 6 6 , 869 a l s o G l a s s v. S t a t e , Morris v. Burgess v. S t a t e , v. State, State, 783 710 So. 2d So. 2 d 964 1156 State, 90 0 956 So. 2d 1362 2008); App. 1993); App. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; ( A l a . Crim. ( A l a .Crim. App. ( A l a . C r i m . App. ( A l a . Crim. ( A l a .Crim. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991); App. 431 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1996); ( A l a . Crim. Crim. 2d 1249 S o . 2 d 895 1997). 14 S o . 3 d 188 962 S o . 2 d 272 So. ( A l a . C r i m . App. App. 2004 ) ; App. 1999); May 1997); Jones v. Dubose v. S t a t e , Ford v. State, McGahee v. S t a t e , 630 2005); White Nicks v. v. State, State, 680 662 S o . 2 d So. 2d 111 554 S o . 2 d 454 ( A l a . 1989). "Before the t r i a l judge suspends the normal c o u r s e o f c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s and c o n d u c t s a j u r y i n q u i r y i n t o t h e ' f a c t o f s a n i t y ' t h e r e m u s t come t o his attention factual data, or a l l e g a t i o n s of f a c t u a l d a t a , t e n d i n g t o show ' r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d t o doubt [the accused's] sanity.'" B r i n k s v . S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , 465 F . 2 d 4 4 6 , 450 quoted in in Glass arraignment, Cook (emphasis At reason part v. State, (5th C i r . 1972), 14 So. plea of 3d at 191-92 added). of mental entered disease or defect, 6 a not g u i l t y by a n d he r e q u e s t e d t h a t he CR-08-1507 be permitted court t o undergo a conducted a hearing Cook's counsel Department mental on t h e m o t i o n . introduced medical of Corrections. a previous feelings" offense ideas," bipolar." (R. t h a t C o o k was " i n t e l l e c t u a l borderline." ( R . 9.) as w e l l 7-8.) from t h e Alabama records showed while that incarcerated as " d i a g n o s i s [ o f ] The r e c o r d s also showed f u n c t i o n i n g b o r d e r l i n e [ , ] memory, T r i a l counsel a " h i s t o r y of [taking] psychotropic psychiatric circuit a n d t h a t he h a d a h i s t o r y o f " d e p r e s s e d and "paranoid schizophrenia, medications The During the hearing, records The p r i s o n Cook h a d r e c e i v e d p s y c h o t r o p i c on evaluation. a l s o s t a t e d t h a t Cook h a d medication h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n s . " ( R . 9.) and Counsel previous stated: " I d o n ' t know i f h e r e a l l y u n d e r s t a n d s t h e -- I guess, the g r a v i t y of the charges that are against him, b u t a l s o h i s m e n t a l s t a t e a t t h e t i m e t h a t t h i s was c o m m i t t e d . I b e l i e v e t h a t h e was o n m e d i c a t i o n u p u n t i l t h e t i m e he was r e l e a s e d f r o m S t . C l a i r . A n d o n c e he was o u t , he was n o t on a n y m e d i c a t i o n . " (R. 10.) had told St. Clair and t h a t he b e l i e v e d t h a t C o o k was n o t t a k i n g h i s m e d i c a t i o n s at that Counsel also informed the court h e r t h a t he p i c k e d that Cook's cousin C o o k u p when he was r e l e a s e d Correctional F a c i l i t y , s h o r t l y before time. 7 from the burglary, CR-08-1507 At the conclusion informed the parties had of the hearing, that i t would introduced at the hearing. entered the following order the c i r c u i t court review the records counsel Thereafter, the c i r c u i t denying the motion fora court mental evaluation: " T h i s m a t t e r c o m i n g on b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on t h e 2 6 t h day o f J a n u a r y 2009 b a s e d on [Cook's] M o t i o n f o r Court ordered Mental Examination; the presence of the D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y ; the presence of counsel f o r the Defendant; counsel f o r [Cook] introducing Defendant's E x h i b i t #1 c o n t a i n i n g m e d i c a l r e c o r d s from t h e Alabama Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s and a p r i o r F o r e n s i c E v a l u a t i o n Report dated the 25th of F e b r u a r y , 1 9 9 8 ; s t a t e m e n t s made i n o p e n c o u r t ; t h e Court h a v i n g taken j u d i c i a l knowledge o f i t s f i l e ; and upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e r e o f , t h e C o u r t f i n d s as follows: "1. [Cook] p r e v i o u s l y h a d b e f o r e t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t of Talladega County, Alabama Case No. CC-1997-079 f o r B u r g l a r y i n t h e F i r s t Degree, and C a s e No. CC-1997-080 f o r A t t e m p t e d B u r g l a r y i n t h e Second Degree. These cases were b e f o r e then P r e s i d i n g C i r c u i t Judge J e r r y Fielding. Judge F i e l d i n g o r d e r e d a mental e v a l u a t i o n o f [Cook] a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y r e c e i v e d a r e p o r t t h a t clearly indicated that [Cook] was a b l e t o a s s i s t h i s counsel i n the defense of these cases a n d was n o t s u f f e r i n g from a severe mental disease or defect. "2. Subsequent t o t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of the a f o r e s a i d two c a s e s b e f o r e J u d g e F i e l d i n g , [Cook] h a d a case b e f o r e t h e u n d e r s i g n e d C i r c u i t Judge and no r e q u e s t w a s made f o r a m e n t a l evaluation. S u b s e q u e n t t o t h a t c a s e , [Cook] h a d two f e l o n y c a s e s b e f o r e J u d g e F i e l d i n g a n d no r e q u e s t was 8 CR-08-1507 made f o r a m e n t a l e x a m i n a t i o n . Subsequent t o those two c a s e s , [Cook] h a d a f e l o n y case b e f o r e Judge W i l l i a m E. H o l l i n g s w o r t h , I I I a n d no r e q u e s t w a s made f o r a m e n t a l e x a m i n a t i o n . "3. The C o u r t h a s r e v i e w e d t h e m e d i c a l r e c o r d s f r o m the Alabama Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s t h a t were introduced as Defendant's Exhibit #1. The Court's review included the prior Forensic E v a l u a t i o n Report o f [Cook]. This Court finds t h a t t h e r e a r e no r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s f o r a m e n t a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f [Cook] a n d t h e M o t i o n i s due t o be d e n i e d . " (C. 14-15.) an expert Subsequently, psychologist continue. (C. 17-22.) Cook f i l e d or that the circuit motions; however, i t appears i t had denied Before psychiatrist and f o r funds f o r a motion to The c a s e a c t i o n summary s h e e t d o e s n o t indicate that a motion court formally ruled that the circuit on those court believed the motions. Cook w o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o a mental evaluation to i n q u i r e i n t o h i s c o m p e t e n c y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e , h e was required grounds t o doubt h i s competency. See A k e v . O k l a h o m a , 470 U.S. a t 8 3 . T h i s s t a n d a r d was met i n this t o show r e a s o n a b l e case. The r e c o r d shows t h a t Cook p l e a d e d reason of mental not guilty d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t , t h a t Cook's p r i s o n by medical r e c o r d s r e f l e c t e d t h a t he h a d a h i s t o r y o f s c h i z o p h r e n i a , t h a t he had been treated a n d was taking 9 medications f o r that CR-08-1507 condition the while he was b u r g l a r y he was incarcerated, his medication. normal course of into the attention tending sanity.'" The "Before the t r i a l criminal 'fact factual to proceedings of data, sanity' or shortly Brinks, and there must of doubt at court had sufficient the record factor in at h i s t r i a l . denying Cook's motion to inquiry into Gordon, 556 before So. trial. case consistent for a the h e a l t h was court abused mental trial 2d 363, See Ake v. Cook's i s remanded with 365 this to 470 conviction the circuit opinion. 10 to from doubt Indeed, significant i t s discretion "[T]he warranted further competence." ( A l a . 1988). Oklahoma, a i t evaluation. court [the defendant's] mental Accordingly, this circuit presented evidence a new Cook's mental The data, 450. competency a t the time of the o f f e n s e . shows t h a t his accused's] which t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e were r e a s o n a b l e grounds Cook's mental jury to come [the the a factual facts F.2d suspends conducts to 465 before not have been judge allegations show ' r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d circuit that r e l e a s e d f r o m p r i s o n a n d may taking inquiry and Ex parte Cook i s e n t i t l e d U.S. at i s hereby court to 87. r e v e r s e d and for proceedings CR-08-1507 R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED. W i s e , P . J . , a n d W e l c h , Windom, a n d Main, J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h opinion. , J., MAIN, J u d g e , I reversing Cook's remanding the Cook was a dissent from conviction for the per curiam first-degree charged by violation 13A-7-5, court erred competency a t the time of the o f f e n s e . committed mental Alabama and i n denying those l e g a l opinion, ground the b u r g l a r y evaluation Department was of his The Cook pretrial per curiam analysis i s i n principles. Cook d i d n o t meet h i s b u r d e n to doubt 1975. mental evaluation to determine h i s s e t o u t t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w , a n d my with first-degree A l a . Code mental reasonable circuit § for a court-ordered I n my burglary with motion accordance the of indictment that has opinion case. argues opinion J J . , concur; dissenting. respectfully burglary, Kellum, of showing h i s competency at the time t h a t o f S.W.'s r e s i d e n c e . s u p p o r t e d by Corrections 11 medical His motion records indicating that a he for a from the he had CR-08-1507 previously received paranoia, result and s c h i z o p h r e n i a of other competency counsel with the that at stated seriousness Cook's medications the time that, he court had picked Facility that h i s release cousin testimony he b e l i e v e d medications at that the circuit court and enter time. an o r d e r , stating informed was not St. Clair assist the court taking h i s Corrections. the hearing Cook's c o u n s e l would simply Cook was At the conclusion indicated that Cook's Cook's Cook c o u l d from S t . C l a i r that for as t h e d i d not understand during Instead, C o o k up on h i s r e l e a s e and t h a t Cook was p r e s e n t the cousin's Cook from as the burglary, She a l s o that depression, incarcerated she b e l i e v e d believed for However, of the offense. after that he was committed although m o t i o n , he d i d n o t t e s t i f y . the while she b e l i e v e d cousin Cook's treatment convictions. h i s defense, Although psychiatric i t would on t h e informed be t h a t Correctional not taking h i s of the review the hearing, records as f o l l o w s : "THE COURT: Thank y o u v e r y much. What I'm g o i n g t o do i s I'm g o i n g t o t a k e i t u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t and p e r u s e t h e s e r e c o r d s and d e t e r m i n e what's i n t h e m . A n d t h a t ' s w h a t p r o m p t e d me t o i n q u i r e b e f o r e b e c a u s e o f t h e f a c t t h a t I know t h a t i t ' s s o r t o f puzzling that he was ordered to Taylor Hardin [Secure M e d i c a l F a c i l i t y ] back i n t h e '90s, got a r e p o r t , a f t e r t h e r e p o r t came i n , he p l e d g u i l t y t o 12 he CR-08-1507 two f e l o n i e s . And then he's been n o t o n l y b e f o r e Judge F i e l d i n g subsequent t o t h a t , he's been b e f o r e J u d g e H o l l i n g s w o r t h a n d h e ' s b e e n b e f o r e me, a n d t h e r e ' s b e e n no i n d i c a t i o n o f a n y m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t and t h r e e s e p a r a t e judges have found him t o be c o m p e t e n t a n d p r o c e e d e d t o take h i s p l e a s and sentence him i n those p a r t i c u l a r cases. And I can t e l l y o u , i f I h a d f e l t l i k e i n 2 0 0 1 t h a t he h a d a severe mental d i s e a s e or d e f e c t and c o u l d n ' t a s s i s t his l a w y e r when he was b e f o r e me, i t w o u l d g i v e me c a u s e a n d I'm s u r e i t w o u l d h a v e d o n e t h e same t h i n g i n f r o n t o f Judge H o l l i n g s w o r t h and Judge F i e l d i n g . A n d t h a t ' s why I was i n t e r e s t e d i n s e e i n g w h e t h e r o r not any m o t i o n s had been f i l e d i n those p a r t i c u l a r cases. And you d i d a g r e a t j o b g e t t i n g h i s r e c o r d s from the Department of C o r r e c t i o n s . But I've got t o l o o k a t them and l o o k b a c k a t t h e r e p o r t . " (R. 12-13.). opinion, Thereafter, the c i r c u i t out i t s reasons ordered mental do discretion believe i n denying b e c a u s e Cook f a i l e d motion generating competency believe provided per the request curiam order f o r a court- that the trial court abused i t s f o r a mental examination to present evidence a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e reasonable grounds to the sole sufficient i n the (C. 1 4 - 1 5 . ) Cook's r e q u e s t a t the time that f o r denying evaluation. not s e t out court fashioned a detailed written setting I as of the offense. witness reasonable competency at the time of the o f f e n s e . 13 his Further, the defense grounds doubt as called mental I do n o t at t o Cook's trial mental Dr. B a r r y C o l l i n s , who CR-08-1507 evaluated trial, C o o k on A p r i l 3, 2 0 0 9 , a f t e r t h e o f f e n s e i n d i c a t e d t h a t Cook u n d e r s t o o d r i g h t e x a m i n e d h i m on t h a t one o c c a s i o n he concerning had no opinion he treated suicide Cook only watch. suicidal that During one the that stated that committed the schizophrenia C o o k may have been burglary given prior be removed w h i c h he from stated I believe an appellate evaluation by h i s crowded was cell before a goal-oriented the c i r c u i t court virtue to of court rule i t s ability e v i d e n c e and t o o b s e r v e t h e d e f e n d a n t . testimony presented 2009. at the hearing 14 he In t h i s was Dr. to part. position for hear of medicated, on C o o k ' s request to However, was he prescribed to cut himself decision a when diagnosis i s in a better on having too crowded. Dr. C o l l i n s C o o k made a d e c i s i o n on a b e c a u s e he i n a manic episode with bipolar tendencies. indicated that denied i n was a n t i p s y c h o t i c m e d i c a t i o n f o r Cook i n A p r i l Collins in jail he c u t h i m s e l f Cook's in committed, because Cook he was that condition he was evaluation, w a n t e d t o be moved b e c a u s e t h e c e l l He was time while t h o u g h t s and a d m i t t e d He s t a t e d mental F e b r u a r y 2008, a t t h e t i m e t h e o f f e n s e before f r o m w r o n g when he at the j a i l . Cook's but and a than mental see the case, the only Cook's attorney's CR-08-1507 assertion that Cook charges against testify that him he d i d not and understand that believed he that the g r a v i t y expected Cook was Cook's not of cousin taking one m o n t h b e f o r e to his m e d i c a t i o n s on t h e d a t e he was r e l e a s e d f r o m p r i s o n , w h i c h approximately the was the b u r g l a r y occurred. "[C]ounsel's assertion r e g a r d i n g [a d e f e n d a n t ] ' s lack of understanding of the proceedings, being u n s u p p o r t e d b y a n y e v i d e n c e , was n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o r a i s e a bona f i d e d o u b t as t o [ t h e d e f e n d a n t ] ' s competency. S e e , e . g . , N e l s o n v . S t a t e , 511 S o . 2 d 2 2 5 , 238 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) , a f f ' d , 511 S o . 2 d 2 4 8 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ('In t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y e v i d e n c e , t h e mere a l l e g a t i o n s by c o u n s e l t h a t t h e a c c u s e d i s i n c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l o r was i n s a n e a t t h e t i m e of the commission o f t h e o f f e n s e do n o t e s t a b l i s h r e a s o n a b l e grounds to doubt a defendant's sanity which would warrant an inquiry into his competency.'). See a l s o F r a z i e r v . S t a t e , 758 S o . 2 d 5 7 7 , 587 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , a f f ' d , 758 S o . 2 d 611 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , a n d C l i f f v . S t a t e , 518 S o . 2 d 7 8 6 , 791 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1987)." H a r r i s o n v. S t a t e , No evidence behavior was 905 S o . 2 d 8 5 8 , 862 presented immediately See R u s s e l l v. (reversing that before State, 715 decision and ( A l a . C r i m . App. Cook exhibited the commission So. 2d 866 remanding of psychotic the offense. ( A l a . Crim. case App. where evidence behavior indicated after being that he released). 15 received treatment Dr. C o l l i n s , who 1997) defendant e x h i b i t e d p s y c h o t i c b e h a v i o r a f t e r b e i n g r e l e a s e d from and 2005). prison for such evaluated CR-08-1507 Cook after trial, was the offense indicated testified f o r the defense at C o o k made a g o a l - o r i e n t e d not taking medication f o r schizophrenia decision of p e r s u a s i o n circuit Cook's i n my o p i n i o n , on t h i s court motion determine Thus, d e c i s i o n and when he made t h e to cut himself. Therefore, the that a n d who for a t o meet h i s b u r d e n Accordingly, d i d n o t abuse h i s mental I would matter. Cook f a i l e d i t s court-ordered competency affirm. 16 I would discretion mental a t the time hold that i n denying evaluation to of the offense.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.