E-Filed Document Jun :33: KA COA Pages: 12 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.

Transcription

1 E-Filed Document Jun :33: KA COA Pages: 12 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA CHRISTOPHER ALLEN JOINER APPELLANT V. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF OF APPELLANT George T. Holmes, MSB No Indigent Appeals Division Office of State Public Defender P. O. Box 3510 Jackson MS gholm@ospd.ms.gov Counsel for Appellant

2 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA CHRISTOPHER ALLEN JOINER APPELLANT V. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the judges of this Court may evaluate possible disqualifications or recusal. 1. State of Mississippi 2. Christopher Allen Joiner Respectfully submitted, CHRISTOPHER ALLEN JOINER By: /s/ George T. Holmes George T. Holmes, His Attorney

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii iii iv STATEMENT OF ISSUE 1 STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 FACTS 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 3 ARGUMENT 3 ISSUE # 1 3 CONCLUSION 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 8 iii

4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440 (1956) 5 Bradley v. State, 116 So. 3d 1093 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) 5, 6 Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct. 896 (1975) 6 Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788 (1960) 5 Goff v. State, 14 So. 3d 625 (Miss. 2009) 6 Harden v. State, 59 So. 3d 594 (Miss. 2011) 6 Howard v. State, 701 So. 2d 274 (Miss. 1997) 5 Lokos v. Capps, 625 F. 2d 1258 (5th Cir. 1980) 5 McGinnis v. State, 241 Miss. 883, 133 So. 2d 399 (1961) 6, 7 Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 112 S.Ct (1992) 6 Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836 (1966) 5 Patton v. State, 34 So. 3d 563 (Miss. 2010) 6 Reese v. Wainwright, 600 F. 2d 1085 (5th Cir. 1979) 5 STATUTES Miss. Code Ann (1972) 6 OTHER AUTHORITIES Unif. R. Cir. Co. Ct iv

5 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ISSUE NO. 1: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING JOINER A MENTAL EVALUATION AND COMPETENCY HEARING? STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT This case is already assigned. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This appeal proceeds from the Circuit Court of Jackson County where Christopher Joiner was convicted of three counts of armed robbery. A jury trial was conducted October 3-4, 2016, with the Honorable Dale Harkey, Circuit Judge, presiding. Joiner was sentenced to life imprisonment in each count by the jury. Judge Harkey ordered the sentences in Counts II and III to run concurrently but consecutively to the sentence in Count I. Joiner is presently incarcerated with the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Joiner was represented at trial by the Honorable Dunstin M. Thomas of Pascagoula. FACTS Around 9:00 p.m. on January 26, 2015, Randall Williams knocked on the door at the home of Lonnie and Mary Hester in Pascagoula. [T , , ]. Lonnie s brother, John Hester, lived with them and was present. Id. Mary answered the door and observed that Williams had a companion, later identified as Christopher Joiner, with him. Id. Both men had pistols and forced their way 1

6 into the Hesters home. Id. The man identified as Joiner was wearing a yellow bandana over the lower part of his face. Id. The intruders took the Hesters to the master bedroom at gun-point. Id. As Williams held the Hesters in the bedroom, he directed the other man, he called Chris, to gather up the Hesters valuables. Id. At trial, Mary identified Williams, whom she knew, while Lonnie identified Joiner, whom he knew, as the two intruders. [T. 140, 219]. Williams took a bracelet off Mary and later Chris came in and took a ring from Mary. [T. 149, 153]. At one point, Williams told Chris to shoot Mary because she had become hysterical. [T. 149, 193, 213 ]. Mary and Lonnie testified that Chris aimed his pistol at Mary and both saw the pistol s red laser sight aimed at Mary s head. Id. Lonnie stood up in front of the pistol and said that was not going to happen and the intruders then gathered up what they intended to steal and left the residence. Id. When they heard the door shut, Lonnie and Mary called 911 and looked out of a window and saw a black Dodge pick-up truck driving away. [T. 152, 193, 213]. Items which were stolen included John s television and wallet and Mary s jewelry. [T. 150, 153, , 212]. After an extended high speed chase, Pascagoula police apprehended Williams and Joiner. [T. 130, 134, 136, ]. A pistol was recovered from Williams pant pocket. [T. 179]. Joiner allegedly dropped a pistol which was recovered on the ground near where he was arrested. [T ; Exs. 29, 32]. That pistol did not have a laser sight. Id. Inside Joiner s pants, police found a credit or debit card belonging to John Hester. [T. 2

7 202]. The black pick-up truck belonged to Joiner. [T. 226 ]. John Hester s wallet and television were found in the truck along with two bandanas, one of which was yellow. [T ]. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The trial court should have ordered a mental evaluation for Joiner and then should have conducted a competency hearing. ARGUMENT ISSUE NO. 1: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING JOINER A MENTAL EVALUATION AND COMPETENCY HEARING? Joiner filed a pro se motion asking to proceed pro se. [R. 10; RE 15]. That motion was never set for hearing prior to trial. In the motion, Joiner explained that he had asked a previously appointed attorney to file a motion requesting a mental evaluation which never occurred. Id. The motion also sets forth statements that Joiner did not understand some of the advice and counsel the previous attorney had provided. Id. When the case was called up for trial, Joiner s pro se motion was brought to the court s attention and Joiner s subsequently appointed new trial counsel informed the court that Joiner was requesting a psychological evaluation. [T. 11]. 3

8 The trial judge asked counsel if he had experienced any difficulties communicating with Joiner. [T. 12]. Counsel responded that he had not had any difficulties communicating with Joiner until a few days prior to trial in talking to Joiner about plea negotiations. Id. Counsel said Joiner told him he felt like he couldn t think [right] and had expressed the same concern the morning of trial. Id. Then in responding to the judge s questions, counsel advised the trial judge that Joiner had been able to relay historical details to [counsel] in regard to the commission of these crimes and that counsel experienced no difficulties communicating during trial preparations. Id. The trial judge asked if there was anything for the Court... to consider in regard to the necessity of having an evaluation done and counsel responded there was not. [T. 13]. After that the trial judge observed that Joiner had been before him previously on numerous occasions regarding other felony charges and had entered guilty pleas to other various charges. [T. 13]. On such prior occasions, the judge noted that there had never been any mention of the need for a competency evaluation. Id. Referencing that the issue was raised on the morning of trial for the first time, the judge ruled, [u]nder the circumstances, I feel it necessary to deny your motion for a psychological evaluation. If there s anything else [counsel] or Mr. Joiner would like to add or provide to the Court in addition to this, I ll be glad to hear it. [T ]. Trial counsel indicated he had nothing else at that time. Id. The topic was revisited during a hearing on Joiner s motion for new trial which was denied. [T ]. 4

9 Constitutional due process requires that a person accused of a crime may only be tried if he is legally competent. Bradley v. State, 116 So. 3d 1093, 1096 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013); Lokos v. Capps, 625 F. 2d 1258, 1261 (5th Cir. 1980). To be competent to stand trial, a criminal defendant must be (1) able to perceive and understand the nature of the proceedings; (2) able to rationally communicate with his attorney about the case; (3) able to recall relevant facts; (4) able to testify in his own defense if appropriate; (5) [able] to satisfy the foregoing criteria... commensurate with the severity and complexity of the case. Howard v. State, 701 So. 2d 274, 280 (Miss. 1997) (overruled on other grounds) (citation omitted). See also, Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed. 2d 824 (1960). The conviction of a legally incompetent criminal defendant violates due process. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed. 2d 815 (1966) (citing Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835 (1956)). To protect a defendant s due process guarantee, the United States Supreme Court in Pate, supra, held that a competency hearing should be held whenever the facts or events presented to the trial court raise a bona fide doubt as to the defendant s competency. Pate, 383 U.S. at 385, 86 S.Ct. 836; Reese v. Wainwright, 600 F. 2d 1085, 1091 (5th Cir. 1979). Under Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court Practice 9.06, a trial court is required to order that a defendant undergo a mental examination if, upon its own motion or upon motion of an attorney, [the trial court] has reasonable ground to believe that the 5

10 defendant is incompetent to stand trial[.] The question of whether a trial court has a reasonable ground to suspect incompetency is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Harden v. State, 59 So. 3d 594, 601 ( 14) (Miss. 2011); Bradley, supra, 116 So. 3d An appellate court should determine under this standard whether the trial judge received information which, objectively considered, should reasonably have raised a doubt about the defendant s competence and alerted [the judge] to the possibility that the defendant could neither understand the proceedings, appreciate their significance, nor rationally aid his attorney in his defense. Goff v. State, 14 So. 3d 625, 644 ( 66) (Miss. 2009); Harden, supra, 59 So. 3d 601; Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed. 2d 103 (1975). In Patton v. State, 34 So. 3d 563, 571 ( 24) (Miss. 2010), the Supreme Court held that a trial court must conduct a competency hearing on a defendant s motion, or sua sponte, if there is sufficient doubt about the defendant s competency. See also, McGinnis v. State, 241 Miss. 883, 891, 133 So. 2d 399, 401 (1961); Miss. Code Ann (1972); Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 448, 112 S.Ct. 2572, 120 L.Ed. 2d 353 (1992). In McGinnis, supra, the Mississippi Supreme Court found that an affidavit of McGinnis attorney stating that McGinnis was incapable of conferring with his attorneys or making a rational defense established sufficient showing to trigger the need for a 6

11 competency evaluation. 133 So. 2d 401. In this case, Joiner s pro se motion explaining that he did not understand his previous counsel s advice and his new attorney advising the trial judge of communication difficulties during plea negotiations was sufficient, as in McGinnis, for the trial judge to be required to order a mental evaluation for Joiner to be followed by a full-blown competency hearing. Joiner s trial counsel had reasonable cause to question Joiner s legal competence to stand trial and Joiner s prior appearances before the same trial judge were insufficient for a finding of competency for the current charges. Since there was a sufficient showing of reasonable grounds to suspect Joiner s incompetence, and because the trial judge did not order a mental evaluation and did not conduct a full-blown competency hearing, Joiner was denied due process of law in this case. CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, Joiner respectfully suggests that his convictions here resulted from an unfair trial and he respectfully asks the Court to reverse the convictions in all counts with remand for a new trial. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTOPHER ALLEN JOINER By: /s/ George T. Holmes George T. Holmes, His Attorney 7

12 CERTIFICATE I, George T. Holmes, do hereby certify that I have this the 2nd day of June, 2017, electronically filed the foregoing Brief with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which issued electronic notification of such filing to Hon. Jason L. Davis, Assistant Mississippi Attorney General; and, counsel also this day mailed a hard copy to the following persons not notified by the MEC system by U. S. Mail, first class postage prepaid: Hon. Dale Harkey, Circuit Judge, P. O. Box 998, Pascagoula MS 39568; Hon. Anthony Lawrence III, Dist. Atty., P. O. Box 1756, Pascagoula MS /s/ George T. Holmes George T. Holmes George T. Holmes, MSB No Indigent Appeals Division Office of State Public Defender P. O. Box 3510 Jackson MS gholm@ospd.ms.gov Counsel for Appellant 8