Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Payton v. Hubbard
Citation: 195 F. App'x 584Docket: No. 04-55836
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 28, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Arthur Gene Payton's appeal of the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 has been affirmed. The district court's decision to deny an evidentiary hearing was not erroneous, as Payton did not demonstrate diligence in developing the record in state court, failing to request a hearing or provide specific factual allegations to support his claims. His argument regarding the use of fill-in-the-blank forms was deemed waived and contradicted by his extensive submissions to the California Supreme Court. Additionally, his claim about the unavailability of the trial file was also raised for the first time in reply and thus waived. Payton contended that his due process rights were violated due to the trial court's failure to conduct a competency hearing or allow him to withdraw his plea. However, the appellate court noted that there was no indication that Payton's mental health history was presented to the trial court at the time of his plea. Two psychiatrists were appointed to evaluate Payton's sanity and competency, and their assessments informed his counsel's advice regarding the plea. The court found that Payton's behavior during hearings was normal, and any momentary confusion did not indicate incompetence. The evidence did not meet the "bona fide doubt" standard necessary for a substantive claim regarding incompetence. The plea colloquy indicated that Payton entered his plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, countering his claim that the process was rote. Finally, Payton failed to show that his counsel's performance was deficient; his attorney had thoroughly investigated Payton's mental condition, secured expert evaluations, and reviewed relevant mental health records. The court concluded that no further investigation by counsel would likely have altered the outcome. The decision is affirmed, with the disposition not suitable for publication or citation, and no new evidence presented to the state courts.