SCOTUSblog Tibbals v. Carter : Issue: 1) Whether capital prisoners possess a “right to competence” in federal habeas proceedings under Rees v. Peyton; and 2) whether a federal district court can order an indefinite stay of a federal habeas proceeding under Rees. [argued Oct 9, 2012] [Transcript]
And the Oyez frame: Facts of the Case
"On September 13, 1997, Sean Carter raped and murdered Veader Prince in her home. A grand jury indicted Carter for aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and rape. Carter entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial court heard conflicting testimony from three experts, but found Carter competent to stand trial. The case proceeded to trial and Carter was convicted. After the penalty phase, Carter was sentenced to death.
Carter challenged the trial court's competency finding in the Ohio Supreme Court. The court determined that the lower court's decision was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable and dismissed Carter's challenge. Carter then sought post-conviction relief in the state courts and attacked the performance of his attorneys who Carter claimed failed to show that his paranoid personality did not allow him to trust and therefore consult with his lawyers. The trial court denied relief, and the appeals court confirmed. The Ohio Supreme Court denied review.
In 2002, Carter sought habeas relief including a motion for competency determination and a stay of his proceedings. The district court ordered a competency hearing. After reviewing the testimony of experts, the district court stated that capital prisoners possessed a ""right to competence"" in a habeas proceeding, which led the district court to dismiss the habeas petition without prejudice and to toll the one-year statute of limitations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the lower court's ruling. The appellate court emphasized that it was improper to toll a statute of limitations indefinitely and that the habeas proceedings should be stayed only until the petitioner was found to be competent. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court."
