him” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Indeed, the prisoner’s ability vel non to comprehend that execution means the end of his physical life was the deciding factor in two post-Ford competency cases. In Singleton v. State, 313 S.C. 75, 437 S.E.2d 53, 58 (1993), the court concluded that the petitioner, Singleton, was incompetent to be executed because he did not understand “the nature of the punishment”: Singleton is completely unaware that he is capable of dying in the electric chair. His reliance on protective “genes” and his inability to respond to his counsel’s questions with anything other than a yes-no are indicative of Singleton’s failure to understand either the reason or the nature of his punishment. Accord Musselwhite v. State, 215 Miss. 363; 60 So.2d 807, 809 (1952) (<HOLDING>). In contrast, the Fifth Circuit in Garrett v.
holding that petitioner was incompetent to be executed because his catatonic schizophrenia rendered him unable to take account of the significance of being taken to the electric chair holding that where the petitioner purported to provide an exhaustive account of the grounds for his claim of asylum that included no reference to his detention and beating this account of persecution was inconsistent with his later testimony before the ij holding that the concept of excusable neglect could not be invoked to gloss over a failure to take minimum safeguards for determining that action is being taken holding that claim that counsel was ineffective for allowing defendant to proceed while incompetent was facially insufficient where defendant did not allege he actually was incompetent to proceed to trial or insane at the time of his offense holding that indictment for theft by deception was insufficient because the indictments failure to name the deputies and employees involved left fadell unable to anticipate the proof which would be adduced against him and unable to prepare his defense