United States v. Clarence O'Neal, No. 07-2634 (8th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - section 4245. District court's finding of mental disease or defect was supported by unrefuted opinion of mental health professionals and was not clearly erroneous.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-2634 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Clarence O Neal, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: March 27, 2008 Filed: May 8, 2008 ___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Clarence O Neal appeals the district court s1 order committing him under 18 U.S.C. § 4245, which provides for the hospitalization of an imprisoned person suffering from a mental disease or defect, until he no longer needs treatment or his prison sentence expires, whichever occurs first. Following careful review, we conclude that the district court s section 4245 finding was supported by the unrefuted 1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. opinion of the mental health professionals at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, and was not clearly erroneous, notwithstanding O Neal s denial of mental illness and the inability of defense counsel s separate examiner to offer a diagnostic impression. See 18 U.S.C. § 4245(d) (determination of mental illness and treatment need, and burden of proof); United States v. Bean, 373 F.3d 877, 879 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review); United States v. Eckerson, 299 F.3d 913, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (upholding commitment order based on opinion of prison hospital staff, despite inmate s denial of mental illness). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari. ______________________________ -2-
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.
