Sieling v. Eyman
Gilbert F. Sieling, Sr.
Frank A. Eyman, Warden, Arizona State Prison
The trial court committed a reversible error when it failed to conduct an inquiry into his mental capacity to enter a plea of guilty.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Dennis J. Skarecky
Chief Lawyers for Respondent
William P. Dizon, Gary K. Nelson
Duniway, Koelsch (writing for the majority), Merrill
Los Angeles, California
Date of Decision
23 April 1973
Where a U.S. District Court in the Ninth Circuit inquires into the mental capacity of a defendant to stand trial, it also must conduct an inquiry into that defendant's mental capacity to plead guilty. Furthermore, when a questionably competent defendant pleads guilty, the standard for determining competency is higher than when the court is determining a defendant's mental capacity to stand trial.
- Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150 (1966).
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).
- Schoeller v. Dunbar, 423 F. 2d 1183 (1970).
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993).
- Boch, Brian R. "Fourteenth Amendment--The Standard of Mental Competency to Waive Constitutional Rights Versus the Competency Standard to Stand Trial." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, winter/spring 1994.
- "Competence To Plead Guilty and to Stand Trial: A New Standard When a Criminal Defendant Waives Counsel." Virginia Law Review, May 1982.
- Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee: 1979 - Near Disaster
- Shimp v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Company - A Major Public Health Concern, A Common Law Right, Clear And Overwhelming Evidence, Balancing Rights And Legislative Response
- Sieling v. Eyman - Significance
- Sieling v. Eyman - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias