Hammett v. Texas

Background

A Texas man convicted of murder and sentenced to death told his lawyer he did not want to pursue any further appeals. Despite that, his appointed lawyer filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The man swore in an affidavit that his choice to stop appealing was voluntary and informed. The State of Texas did not oppose his motion to withdraw the petition.

Reasoning

The Court relied on its Rule 60 allowing a petitioner to withdraw a petition or appeal. Petitioner’s counsel did not question his competence, and the State did not object. The Court therefore found no basis to deny the motion and granted the withdrawal. The opinion emphasized that allowing withdrawal would not prevent the man from later seeking other types of legal relief in state or federal court.

Real world impact

The Court’s order clears the way for state officials to carry out the death sentence unless the prisoner brings a new challenge. The opinion noted that, if dismissed, the state court would issue a mandate and could set an execution date under Texas procedures. The decision lets Texas proceed with the steps that lead to execution while separate cases about how psychiatric testimony is gathered remain pending. This order does not resolve the larger constitutional questions that may affect similar death-penalty cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Marshall and Blackmun dissented. They would have taken the case for full briefing because a related case (Estelle v. Smith) may show that using a court-appointed psychiatrist’s pretrial interviews at sentencing violates defendants’ rights and could require reconsidering executions.