Ex Parte Charles E. Mines, Applicant

Summary

The Court held that a death‑sentenced inmate is not required to be mentally competent to assist counsel in filing a habeas corpus application. The majority based its decision on statutory silence, the lack of a constitutional right to counsel in post‑conviction proceedings, and the distinction between trial and collateral review. A dissent argued that the statutory mandate to investigate factual grounds may implicitly require competency and called for a remand.