Rex Michael Bailey v. Larry Spears, Warden & the Attorney General of the State of Alabama

Citations: 847 F.2d 695; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8144; 1988 WL 53315Docket: 86-7319

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; June 16, 1988; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Rex Michael Bailey, pro se, appeals a denial of his habeas corpus petition concerning his life sentence under Alabama's Habitual Offenders Act for first-degree escape. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals upheld his sentence, and the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama denied his habeas corpus application following a magistrate's recommendation. On appeal, Bailey argues he was not competent to stand trial due to psychiatric issues and asserts he should have received an insanity defense. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, led by Senior District Judge Dumbauld, finds merit in these claims, particularly considering Bailey's youth, the nature of the offense, and the severity of the penalty. The court concludes that existing evidence, including testimony from a psychologist and Bailey's mother, raises significant doubts about his mental capacity, warranting an evidentiary hearing by a qualified medical expert. Consequently, the case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Circuit Judge Johnson dissents, arguing that Bailey has already shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he was incompetent and would reverse the district court's decision outright, directing that the writ be granted unless new proceedings are initiated by the State of Alabama.

Rex Michael Bailey was indicted for first-degree escape from Cullman County Jail while serving an assault sentence. After his escape, his counsel requested a mental examination, claiming Bailey was incompetent to stand trial and insane at the time of the escape. A hearing was held where witnesses, including William Thornton from the Alabama Mental Health Center, testified about Bailey's psychotic behavior, hallucinations, and limited cognitive abilities, with an I.Q. comparable to a sixth or seventh grader. Thornton noted that Bailey's participation in his defense would be constrained and recommended further psychological evaluation. Testimonies from Bailey's mother and cellmates supported claims of his mental health issues, including a past suicide attempt and conversations with himself. Despite this evidence, the state trial judge ruled that Bailey did not show reasonable cause to question his competency or sanity, denying the motion for a mental examination and a request for a psychiatrist. The legal standard for competency requires a defendant to have a rational understanding of the proceedings and to consult effectively with their attorney. The author opines that the historical facts do not support the state court's competency finding and that Bailey proved his incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence, asserting that the denial of a psychiatrist violated his due process rights.

The court interpreted Ake to require defendants to demonstrate a 'substantial basis' for an insanity defense before a psychiatric expert is appointed. Bailey met this requirement in the state trial court, but did not assert the Ake claim in his habeas corpus petition or in his appeal brief. Typically, the court does not consider new issues raised for the first time on appeal unless it would lead to a miscarriage of justice. Despite this, one judge believes Bailey is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus due to incompetence to stand trial, thus finding it unnecessary to determine if the Ake violation constitutes a miscarriage of justice. The record shows Bailey, who was 26 at the time of the offense and had psychiatric issues since age 14, was not competent to stand trial. The judge recommends reversing the district court’s denial of Bailey’s habeas petition. The current conviction of escape triggers a life sentence under the recidivist statute, which has been criticized regarding its effectiveness for prison administration. The judge cites Thomas Jefferson's views on the natural law against punishing escape from confinement. Additionally, the court does not address claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or selective application of the Habitual Offenders Act, stating that a competency hearing is necessary before Bailey can be retried for escape.