Hood v. King
Filing
38
ORDER denying 29 Motion for Hearing; adopting in part Report and Recommendations re 31 Report and Recommendations; denying 15 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 24 Motion to Suppress; denying 25 Motion for Competency Hearing. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 3/25/2013 (PL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
RONALD HOOD
PETITIONER
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11CV15-DCB-RHW
RON KING
RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER
On February 10, 2011, Ronald Hood filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas
Corpus
[docket
no.
1]
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§
2254,
challenging the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence.
Pending before the Court is his original Petition. The Respondent,
Ron King, filed an answer to the Petition [docket no. 12] on August
25, 2011. On May 23, 2012, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend
[docket no. 15], which is also currently pending. The Motion to
Amend encompasses some of the claims in the original Petition, but
also
raises
entirely
new
claims.
On
December
14,
2012,
the
Petitioner filed a twenty-five-page pleading which he styled as a
“Writ of Habeas Corpus Relief Brief” [docket no. 23]. Many of the
claims raised in this pleading are alleged in neither his original
Petition nor Motion to Amend. In addition to these pleadings, the
Petitioner has filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence [docket no. 24],
Motion for 2nd Mental Examination and Competency Hearing [docket
no. 25], and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing [docket no. 29].
Magistrate Judge Walker addressed these motions in a Report and
Recommendation entered on January 30, 2013, and the Petitioner
filed
his
objections
on
March
12,
2013.
That
same
day,
the
Respondent also indicated that he does not intend to respond to the
Petitioner’s objections.
I. PETITIONER’S “OTHER” MOTIONS
Having carefully examined the Petitioner’s objections, the
Court finds that he did not object to Magistrate Judge Walker’s
findings with regard to his Motion to Amend his Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus [docket no. 15], “Writ of Habeas Corpus Relief
Brief” [docket no. 23],
Motion to Suppress Evidence [docket no.
24], and Motion for 2nd Mental Examination and Competency Hearing
[docket no.
25].
To the
extent
that
Magistrate
Judge
Walker
recommended the additional arguments raised in Petitioner’s Motion
to Amend and “Habeas Brief” are new and therefore procedurally
barred, the Court adopts his recommendation. Further, the Court
also adopts the recommendation that Petitioner’s Motion to Suppress
and Motion for 2nd Mental Examination should be dismissed as
procedurally improper. The Court reiterates, however, that the
arguments raised in each of these Motions that relate to the
Petitioner’s original habeas petition are addressed in the Report
and Recommendation and will be considered by this Court.
II. THE MERITS OF THE PETITIONER’S HABEAS CLAIM
To that end, having considered the merits of the Petitioner’s
objections, the Court has no difficulty adopting the findings of
the Report and Recommendation with respect to all claims but one.
First, the Petitioner failed to object to the findings regarding
(1) marital privilege, (2) “sexually explicit conduct,” and (3)
unconstitutionally vague statutes. The Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation as to these claims. Further, although the Petitioner
does
object
to
the
findings
with
respect
to
(4)
improper
prosecutorial remarks and (5) improper introduction of videotapes
into evidence, he has not convinced this Court that these claims
are not procedurally barred, or that a fundamental miscarriage of
justice will result by not considering these claims. Finally, with
respect to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the Court
fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of the these
claims,
which
directly
addresses
the
Petitioner’s
mostly
regurgitated arguments, with one exception.
The Court finds that further investigation is necessary on the
matter of whether the Petitioner should have received a mental
competency hearing—or whether his attorney was ineffective for
failing to pursue a hearing—after the trial judge ordered a mental
competency evaluation. The Petitioner, who claims to be mentally
incompetent
clear—perhaps
throughout
for
the
his
brief,
first time
has
in any
made
it
briefing
abundantly
before
any
court—that he should have received a mental competency hearing. As
this Court understands it, the Respondent’s position is that a
competency hearing was unnecessary because the court-appointed
clinical psychologist, Dr. W. Criss Lott, found that the Petitioner
was indeed competent to stand trial. Based upon the cases cited by
3
the Petitioner, however, there is merit in his legal position that
Mississippi Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court Practice
(“URCCC”) 9.06 requires a trial judge to hold a competency hearing
if he orders a competency evaluation and a trial judge’s failure to
do so results in a due process violation.1 James v. State, 86 So.
3d 286, 291-93 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012); Sanders v. State, 9 So. 3d
1132, 1136 (Miss. 2009) (“In the face of [Rule 9.06's] plain
language, it is evident that it would be error not to hold a
competency
hearing
once
a
trial
court
orders
a
psychiatric
evaluation to determine competency to stand trial.”); Jay v. State,
25 So. 3d 257, 262-63 (Miss. 2009) (“Here, the trial court clearly
had reasonable grounds to believe Jay was incompetent to stand
1
Mississippi URCCC Rule 9.06 provides:
If before or during trial the court, of its own motion or
upon motion of an attorney, has reasonable ground to
believe that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial,
the court shall order the defendant to submit to a mental
examination by some competent psychiatrist selected by
the court in accordance with § 99-13-11 of the
Mississippi Code Annotated of 1972.
After the examination the court shall conduct a hearing
to determine if the defendant is competent to stand
trial. After hearing all the evidence, the court shall
weigh the evidence and make a determination of whether
the defendant is competent to stand trial. If the court
finds that the defendant is competent to stand trial,
then the court shall make the finding a matter of record
and the case will then proceed to trial. If the court
finds that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial,
then the court shall commit the defendant to the
Mississippi State Hospital or other appropriate mental
health facility.
4
trial, as evidenced by the order for a psychiatric evaluation. . .
. [T]he trial court’s failure to hold a competency hearing was a
violation of Jay’s constitutional rights and, therefore, requires
reversal.”).
III. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS NECESSARY
To the extent that the Petitioner is raising a due-process
claim with regard to the competency hearing, that claim may be
procedurally barred.2 See generally Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S.
722 (1991); see also
LaFlamme v. Hubbard, 225 F.3d 663, *2-*3 (9th
Cir. 2000) (explaining why allegations of mental incompetency at
the time of trial does not automatically excuse a petitioner’s
procedural default) (unpublished table decision). And, to the
extent that the Petitioner’s claim is one of ineffective assistance
of counsel—if that claim was indeed adjudicated on the merits,
2
On direct appeal, the Petitioner, who at the time was
represented by counsel, failed to raise the matter of the
competency hearing, and therefore the Mississippi Supreme Court did
not address the issue. The Petitioner, who then proceeded pro se in
his motion for post-conviction relief, barely raised the issue of
his attorney’s ineffectiveness for failure to file a motion for a
competency hearing. See docket no. 13-4, pg. 42. The Mississippi
Supreme Court denied the Petitioner’s ineffective-assistance claim
on the merits, citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668
(1984), but found the Petitioner’s remaining claims to be
procedurally barred pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1). See
Order, docket no. 13-4, pg. 27. The Petitioner again raised the
matter in a motion for reconsideration, this time perhaps on both
ineffective-assistance and due-process grounds, see Motion for
Reconsideration ¶¶ 22, 40, docket no. 13-4 at 13, 17, but the
entirety of the Petitioner’s claims were not considered for
procedural reasons. See Aug. 25, 2010, Order, docket entry no. 13-4
at 3.
5
which it appears to be—it is subject to the ADEA’s unreasonableapplication standard, recently described by the United States
Supreme Court as doubly-deferential in the context of ineffectiveassistance claims. See Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 788
(2011); see also Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088 (2013).
Given that the Petitioner claims to lack the mental competency
to adequately address these issues, and given that the issues of
procedural default and ineffective assistance of counsel in the
context of § 2254(d) rest on some rather fine distinctions, see
generally, Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012); Richter, 131
S. Ct. 770, the Court will appoint counsel for the Petitioner in
this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(h). Appointed counsel is to
review the Petitioner’s habeas claim related to his argument that
(1) he should have received a mental competency hearing and that
(2) his trial and appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to
raise this issue. Following this review, the Petitioner, through
counsel, may file an amended petition related to his claims arising
out of his failure to receive a competency hearing. Or if counsel
believes the Petitioner’s claims to be sufficiently stated, he may
move for the Court to hold a hearing on this matter. Once the
Respondent has the opportunity to answer or respond, the Court will
determine if a hearing on the matter is necessary and will resolve
the Petitioner’s habeas claim.
In
light
of
the
foregoing,
6
IT
IS
HEREBY
ORDERED
THAT
Petitioner’s Motion to Amend his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
[docket no. 15], “Writ of Habeas Corpus Relief Brief” [docket no.
23], Motion to Suppress Evidence [docket no. 24], Motion for 2nd
Mental Examination and Competency Hearing [docket no. 25] are
DENIED.
IT
IS
FURTHER
ORDERED
THAT
Petitioner’s
Motion
for
Evidentiary Hearing [docket no. 29] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in
part. The Petitioner may proceed with his habeas claim in the
manner outlined above. To that end, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the
Petitioner is appointed counsel. The case is referred the case to
the Magistrate Judge for this purpose.
So ORDERED, this the 25th day of March, 2013.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?