Title: Benbow v. State

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

614 So. 2d 398 (1993) Jerome BENBOW v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 91-KP-0061. Supreme Court of Mississippi. February 18, 1993. *399 Jerome Benbow, pro se. Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Ellen Y. Dale, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. En Banc. McRAE, Justice, for the Court: Jerome Benbow entered a plea of guilty to charges of aggravated assault on a law officer on May 4, 1989, in the Lafayette County Circuit Court and was sentenced to twenty (20) years in custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with five (5) years suspended. Suspending Miss.Sup. Ct. Rule 4, pursuant to Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 2(c), we grant this appeal, which was filed thirty-four (34) days after Benbow's sentencing. Finding that the circuit court erred in refusing to allow Benbow to withdraw his guilty plea and order a trial on the grounds that Benbow had no counsel and had not knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jerome Benbow shot his wife, a campus traffic officer, while she was on duty at the University of Mississippi. Benbow claimed throughout the hearings that he "blacked out" and did not remember the shooting. He attributed this to a blow on the head that he had received earlier in the day when he was assaulted by two men. Benbow was indicted for aggravated assault on a police officer in violation of Miss. Code Ann.Sec. 97-3-7(2)(b) (Supp. 1991), which provides, in pertinent part: A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he ... Benbow's wife, a witness at the trial, however, was never asked about her duties as a University of Mississippi traffic officer. There was no attempt to attack the indictment as to whether a University traffic officer is a "law enforcement officer" within the meaning of the aggravated assault statute. The record indicates that the public defender knew that the victim was a University traffic officer, but just did not think to check out her duties to see if she was the type of "law enforcement officer" intended to fall within the statute. Public Defender Omar Craig was appointed counsel. Legal intern David Minyard, following a court order which permitted him limited practice under Craig's supervision, appeared with Benbow when he entered the guilty plea on May 4, 1989. Benbow signed a petition to plead guilty and Minyard erroneously stated that the minimum sentence was thirty years. Minyard testified that he had thought that thirty years was the minimum sentence and communicated that to Benbow. Circuit Judge Kenneth Coleman did not advise Benbow prior to the plea as to the minimum penalty. Craig testified that he did not talk to Benbow prior to the plea and was not in the courtroom when he pled guilty and was sentenced. *400 On August 8, 1989, Benbow collaterally attacked his plea and sentence, and following an evidentiary hearing, his motion for post-conviction relief/request to withdraw guilty plea was denied. The state has since filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as being untimely filed. We reject the State's argument that we do not have jurisdiction to consider Benbow's appeal because it was not filed until thirty-four days after sentencing. To deny the motion, we must suspend the 30-day filing rule provided for in Miss.Sup.Ct. Rule 4 as well Miss.Sup.Ct. Rule 2(a)(1), which mandates dismissal if notice is untimely. In this case, the notice was due December 31, 1990, and was not stamped "filed" by the clerk until January 4, 1991, four days late. Benbow argues that he delivered his notice of appeal to the prison authorities for mailing on December 29, 1990. He further asserts that he cannot be faulted because it did not arrive in the clerks office for filing until January 4, 1992. In civil cases, we have refused to accept any excuse for not filing a notice in a timely fashion. See Tandy Electronics, Inc. v. Fletcher, 554 So. 2d 308 (Miss. 1989). Whether, in criminal cases involving an incarcerated pro se litigant, the timely delivery to appropriate prison authorities is considered sufficient is a question of first impression in this State. Miss.Sup.Ct. Rule 4, in relevant part, provides that: Miss.Sup.Ct. Rule 2(a)(1) mandates dismissal if notice is untimely. Rules 2(c) and 4(g), read in conjunction with Miss. Code Ann. 99-39-25(1) (Supp. 1991) provides this Court with authority to suspend the rule in post-conviction relief appeals, as in any other criminal appeal, and to allow an appeal to proceed despite apparently untimely notice. The Comment to Miss. Supreme Ct. R. 4 notes that "a party must do all it could reasonably be expected to do to perfect the appeal in a timely fashion." We find that Benbow did all he could do under the circumstances. The Comment to Rule 4 also notes that upon the filing of an "excusable neglect" motion to extend the time for filing notice, courts may allow out of time appeal where, for example, "a timely *401 mailed notice was late because of unanticipated and uncontrollable delays in the mail." Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139, 84 S. Ct. 1689, 12 L. Ed. 2d 760 (1964). The U.S. Supreme Court followed Fallen in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 101 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1988), a case virtually indistinguishable from the case sub judice. In Houston v. Lack, the Supreme Court held that under a similarly worded Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure, a prisoner's pro se notice of appeal is deemed filed with timely delivery to proper prison authorities. The only difference between the Fed.R.App.P. 4 and the Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 4 is that Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1) applies to civil appeals, but habeas corpus appeals in federal court are civil matters. The threshold question is when the notice of appeal has been "filed" within the meaning of the rule; it matters not that Benbow is pursuing a criminal appeal and Houston was a civil appeal. The language setting the time limit for each is indistinguishable Benbow had 30 days in which to have his notice "filed with the clerk of the trial court." Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 4(a). Houston had 30 days to have his notice "filed with the clerk of the district court." Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). The Houston Court stated: Id., at 270-76, 108 S. Ct. at 2382-85. Fed. R.App.P. 4(a)(1). The Houston decision further notes that reference to prison mail logs will generally provide a straightforward means of proving when a pro se litigant delivered his appeal for posting. In the case sub judice, we have only copies of Benbow's notice and designation of record dated December 29, as well as his testimony that he delivered it to them on that day to guide us. The record does not include copies of the prison mail logs, if indeed any, do exist. Our perusal of the law of other jurisdictions shows that eight states have ruled on *402 the "prison mailbox rule". Seven have declined to adopt it.[1] The states which have declined to adopt Houston have done so primarily because of the lack of procedural guidelines in their state prison mailing system that are present in the federal system. They point out that in the federal system, there is a well developed procedure for determining the time and date on which mail is received. To the contrary, in most state systems, the mail is simply deposited in a common institutional mailbox with no record kept of who sent the information or at what time. Only Massachusetts has expressly followed Houston. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that "[o]nce the defendant comes forward with evidence as to the date and time he deposited the notice with prison authorities the burden is on [the state] to show that the defendant could not have deposited it within the established time." Commonwealth v. Hartsgrove, 407 Mass. 441, 444, 553 N.E.2d 1299, 1302 (1990). The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts further found that it would be unfair to hold the defendant responsible for the vagaries of the prison mail system. Id. "The trial judge may note routine practice of prison authorities of picking up and delivering all mail within 24 hours, or it being deposited in the prison institutional mailbox and any records kept and the credibility of the defendant." Id., n. 6. While we leave the decision to adopt or reject the prison mailbox rule for another day, we find that circumstances dictate the suspension of Rule 4, thus enabling us to grant Benbow's appeal. Benbow next questions whether representation by a legal intern, acting under authority of Miss. Code Ann. Sec. 73-3-207 (1972), constitutes the actual assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Constitution. We hold that it does not. Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 73-3-207 provides that: Before reaching the question of whether counsel was deficient, and whether there was prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 467 U.S. 1267, 104 S. Ct. 3562, 82 L. Ed. 2d 864 (1984), it is necessary to determine whether Benbow actually was represented by counsel at the time he entered his plea. See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1984). The legal intern was not a licensed attorney at the time, though he was given limited authority via Sec. 73-3-207 to practice as if he were licensed, subject to adequate supervision by a licensed attorney. By most accounts, Public Defender Omar Craig allowed his law student intern to handle this case, though he claims to have consulted privately with him on a regular basis. Apparently, Craig never met with Benbow, was not in court with him for the plea and did not discuss the plea process with him, despite the requirement of Sec. 73-3-207 that a licensed attorney appear in court to supervise a legal intern in the conduct of any trial or hearing. It further appears that neither Craig nor the intern had even questioned whether the indictment was defective nor queried Benbow's wife in order to ascertain the nature of her job or whether she had taken the oath of a law enforcement officer to determine if she in fact fell within the purview of the statute under which Benbow was indicted. When asked about the extent of his knowledge as to any representation provided by Craig the defendant stated: In response, Craig explained the extent of his contact (or lack thereof) with the defendant throughout the representation: Some jurisdictions have found that representation by an intern does, in fact constitute adequate representation, but the statutes governing this issue and the procedures involved when a law student represent a defendant differ greatly from our own. See Aldridge v. State, 425 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1983) (on claim that intern was not properly supervised, public defender was in charge of appellant's case and intern merely assisting); Darnell v. State, 623 P.2d 617 (Okla.Cr. 1981) (special rule provided for waiver of supervising attorney; representation by intern at preliminary hearing with consent); City of Seattle v. Ratliff, 100 Wash. 2d 212, 667 P.2d 630 (1983) (statute allowed intern to represent client alone without supervision if intern had participated with supervisor in at least one nonjury case). See also Zupanec, Annotation, Propriety and Effect of Law Students Acting As Counsel in Court Suit, 3 A.L.R.4th 358 (1981); Sarno, Annotation, Modern Status of Rules and Standard in State Courts As to Adequacy of Defense Counsel's Representation of Criminal Client, 2 A.L.R.4th 27 (1980); Moldoff, Annotation, Representation of Accused by Person Not Licensed to Practice Law as Compliance with Constitutional Right To Counsel 68 A.L.R.2d 1141 (1959). The common thread in these cases is that for the intern's representation to be considered adequate, the attorney and the intern must have complied with all of the statutory prerequisites. Because we have no guidance from other jurisdictions on this issue, we must evaluate the requirements set forth in our own statute to determine if Benbow's appointed counsel complied with them in a meaningful fashion. The statute specifically states that in all court proceedings, a licensed attorney must be present to supervise the intern. The evidence before us makes clear that Omar Craig was not present at Benbow's hearing nor during any of the intern's meetings with his client. We find that Craig's supervision of his intern falls short of the statutory command that the sponsoring attorney be present with his intern in the courtroom. Indeed, this case provides a textbook example *404 of the Legislature's reason for so dictating. Accordingly, finding that Benbow was not represented by counsel, at the time he entered his guilty plea we therefore do not reach the question of whether any such representation was adequate since there was none.[2] Because the record indicates that Benbow neither knowingly nor intelligently waived his right to counsel, we find that the circuit court erred in failing to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea and order a new trial. Benbow next asserts that the indictment is defective because it alleges aggravated assault on a law officer when, in fact, the victim was not a law officer within the meaning of Sec. 97-3-7(2). This point is significant because aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer carries an enhanced penalty. However, while there may well be problems with the indictment, we find that this question is properly a matter for the circuit court to determine. Finding that Benbow's "representation" by a largely unsupervised law student intern does not constitute representation by counsel, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. HAWKINS, C.J., DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, P.JJ., and SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS and SMITH, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., not participating. [1] See eg. Key v. State, 297 Ark. 111, 759 S.W.2d 567 (1988); Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778 (Del. 1989); Hicks v. State, 565 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1990); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 786 P.2d 594 (1990); Vollmer v. State, 775 S.W.2d 230 (Mo. App. 1989); State v. Alexander, 52 Ohio St.3d 84, 555 N.E.2d 966 (1990); Turner v. Commonwealth, 137 Pa. Commw. 609, 587 A.2d 48 (1991). [2] Benbow also asserted that his plea was rendered involuntary because he was not properly advised of the minimum sentence the offense carried. Vittitoe v. State, 556 So. 2d 1062 (Miss. 1990). Finding that he was not represented by counsel, we do not reach this issue.