Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

411 S.W.2d 461

Hearon v. Wingo

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided February 10, 1967

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · decided 1967-02-10

Relies on Ayers v. Davis · Commonwealth v. Strickland · Conners v. Commonwealth

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-02-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 2002

2 state decisions

1019671970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CLAY, Commissioner.

¶1This is a habeas corpus proceeding brought by appellant, who was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, against the warden of the Kentucky State Penitentiary. His petition in the Lyon Circuit Court was dismissed. We have before us a most inadequate record, but it raises a question which we believe merits a brief opinion.

¶2Appellant’s sole claim is that he was insane at the time of his trial. Appellant relies on Thomas v. Morrow, Ky., 361 S.W.2d 105, wherein we expressed the view that if a person is incompetent “at the time of arraignment and sentence”, the judgment entered on conviction is void and a habeas corpus proceeding affords the proper remedy. This case was decided prior to the effective date of our Rules of Criminal Procedure (January 1, 1963) wherein RCr 11.42 created a new and more practical postconviction remedy.

¶3In Commonwealth v. Strickland, Ky., 375 S.W.2d 701, Barnes v. Commonwealth, Ky., 397 S.W.2d 44, and McElwain v. Commonwealth, Ky., 400 S.W.2d 212, we recognized that an RCr 11.42 motion is the proper proceeding to attack a judgment of conviction when the prisoner claims that he was insane at the time of his trial. In Ayers v. Davis, Ky., 377 S.W.2d 154, we held that habeas corpus could not be invoked if the prisoner had an adequate remedy under RCr 11.42.

¶4In Conners v. Commonwealth, Ky., 400 S.W.2d 519, we held that RCr 11.42 relief was not available on the ground that “the defendant was insane”. The *462principal contention of the movant in that case was that he was insane at the time the crime was committed. Such a claim constitutes a defense which must be presented at the trial, and it is not a ground for vacating a judgment under RCr 11.42. However, insanity at the time of trial presents an entirely different question, affecting the prisoner’s constitutional rights, and the only proper postconviction remedy, if any, is an RCr 11.42 proceeding.

¶5Thomas v. Morrow, Ky., 361 S.W.2d 105, is no longer authoritative on the question presented. This habeas corpus proceedings was properly dismissed.

¶6The judgment is affirmed.

WILLIAMS, PALMORE, HILL, MIL-LIKEN, STEINFELD and OSBORNE, JJ-, concur.
/411/sw2d/461 · .json · Public domain