IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2017-KA-00177-COA CHRISTOPHER ALLEN JOINER A/K/A CHRISTOPHER JOINER A/K/A CHRISTOPHER A. JOINER A/K/A CHRIS JOINER APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DALE HARKEY COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: GEORGE T. HOLMES ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ABBIE EASON KOONCE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: ANTHONY N. LAW RENCE III NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED: 02/13/2018 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ. GRIFFIS, P.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. C h ristopher Allen Joiner appeals h is convictions f or three counts of arm ed robber y under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-7-79(2) (Rev. 2014). He argues that the trial

court i m properly d enied his request f or a m ental evaluation to determ ine whether he was f it to stand trial. W e f

ind no error and af

f irm

. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. On February

1, 2016, af

ter he was indicted, Joiner f iled a m o tion to p roceed pro se. In the m otion, Joiner stated that h e had asked his f irst appointed attorney f

or a psy chologicalevaluation. Joiner provided n o other basis, reasoning, or explanation f or such an evaluation. Then on May 24, 2016, f

ive m onths bef

ore his trial, J oiner w as appointed new trial counsel. ¶3. Joiner m a de no f

urther m ention of his request f or a psy chological evalua t i o n t o h i s

new attorney or to t he j u d g e i n h i s num erous pretrial court appearances. Then Joiner was of f ered a plea deal. Joiner discussed the details of h is case and t he plea with his attorney , and then with the judge. Nevertheless, Joiner rejected the plea of f e r and decided to go to trial. ¶4. The t r i a l b e g a n o n O c t o b er 3, 2016. At trial, Joiner m entioned his request f or a psy c h ological evaluation t o his new attorney and subsequently to the judge. This was the f irst tim e Joiner had me n t i o n e d i t since the m otion to p roceed pro se. Af ter a discussion between Joiner, his attorney , and the judge, t he m otion f or a psy chological e v aluation was denied. ¶5. The jury f

ound Joiner guilty of all three arm ed-robbery counts. He was sentenced to lif e in the custody of the Mississippi Departm e nt of Corrections on e ach count, with the

sentences in Counts II and III to run concurrently with each o ther and consecutively to the

sentence i m

posed in Count I. J oiner f i led a m otion f

or a n ew trial a n d raised the issue of the
psy c h ological evaluation. The court denied the m otion, and Joiner has tim ely appealed. S TANDARD OF REVIEW ¶6. Constitutional due process requires t hat a p erson accused of a crim e m ay only be tried if he is legally

com petent. Lokos v. Capps , 625 F.2d 1258, 1261 (5th C ir. 1980). Unif orm Rule of Circuit and County Court 9.06 requires a trial court t o order a def endant t o undergo

a m ental exam ination if

, upon “its own m otion or upon m otion of an attorney , [ the trial court]

2has reasonable ground to beli e v e t h a t t he def endant i s incom

petent to stand trial[ .]” 1 The d e t e r mi nation of w hether a trial court has a “reasonable ground” to suspect m ental incom petency is within the discretion of the trial court. Harden v. State , 59 S o. 3d 594, 601 (¶14) ( M i ss. 2011). This discretion is broad in determ ining whether to order a m ental evaluation and com

p etency hearing. Id. at 603 (¶19). This i s because the t rial judge is in the best position to observe the appellant and his dem e anor. Id. ¶7. The standard of r e view f or an appellate court to determ i ne if there was a n abuse of discretion is whether “the trial ju dge received i nf orm ation which, objectively c onsidered, should reasonably have r aised a d oubt about [ the] def endant’s c om

petence and alerted [ the j udge] t o the p ossibility that the def e ndant could n either understand the proceed i n g s , appreciate their s i gnif

icance, n or r ationally aid his a ttorney in his def ense[ .]” Goff v. State , 14 So. 3d 625, 644 (¶66) (Miss. 2009) (citation o m itted). “[ T]here is no a buse of discretion in deny ing a m ental evaluation w here there has been n o proof presented to the trial j udge that such an exam i nation is needed.” Coker v. State , 9 09 So. 2d 1239, 1241 (¶8) ( Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (citation om itted). ANALYSIS ¶8. Joiner argues that the trial court erroneously denied him a m ental evaluation and that the e valuation was necessary to determ ine whether he was com petent to reject his plea of f er

1 A lth o u g h it ap p lies in th is case, R u le 9 .0 6 h as sin c e b een rep laced b y R u le 1 2 o f th e M ississip p i R u l es o f C rim i n al P ro ced u re (ef f e c t i v e Ju ly 1 , 2 0 1 7 )

. “M ississip p i R u le o f C r im i n al P ro ced u re 1 2 .5 (a) d ep arts f r o m R u le 9 .0 6 ’s m an d ato ry - h earin g r e q u irem en t. In t h e a b s e n c e o f a m o tio n b y th e co u rt o r th e p arties, a h earin g is n o lo n g er m an d ato ry , b u t p erm i ssib le.” P itch

f o rd v
. S ta t e , 2 0 1 5 -C A -0 1 8 1 8 -S C T , 2 0 1 7 W L 4 6 9 9 5 5 2 , at * 5 n .1 (M iss. O c t. 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 ) (citin g M R C rP 1 2 .5 (a) cm t .). 3and stand trial. The State responds that the def ense p resented no m edical evidence as to his

em otional or m e ntal condition upon his m o tion f or a psy chological exam ination that would have warranted such an evaluation. The Mississippi Suprem e Court has held that, in order

to warrant a psy chiatric e xam ination, there m u st be evi d e n ce indicating a r easonable proba b i l i t y that the def

e ndant is incapable o f m aking a rational decision. J aquith v. Beckwith , 248 Miss. 491, 500, 1 57 So. 2d 403, 407-08 ( 1963). Joiner showed n o evidence of a reasonable ground. Joiner’s own t estim ony and t he testim ony of his attorney showed that he was com

petent to stand trial and theref ore not in need of

a m ental evaluation.
W h ile there is no precise statem ent of what quantum of evidence necessitates a t rial judge t o order a m ental evaluation, the United States Suprem e Court h as explained “evidence of a def endant’s irrational behavior, his dem eanor at trial, and any prior m edical o pinion on com petence to stand t rial are all relevant in determ ining whether f

urther inquiry

is required.” Bradley v
. State , 116 So. 3d 1093, 1096 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Drope v. Missouri , 420 U.S. 162, 180 (1975)). ¶9. During ques t i o n i n g o f b o t h J o i n e r a n d h i s a ttorney , each stated there were no problem s com m

unicating with each other or f orm ulating a def

ense: [ JUDGE]: My q

uestion t o y o u , t h o u g h , i s q u i t e s i mp l e . Have y ou discussed this [ plea deal] f ully with y our attorney ? [ JOINER]: Yes, sir; I h ave and he has advised m e to the best of m y i nterest. [ JUDGE]: He has advised y ou, y ou f eel, t o the best of y o ur interest. N ow, the dec i s i on y ou have m a de to, I suppose, reject their recom m e ndation and to proceed to trial, that is y o ur decision? [ JOINER]: Yes, sir. [ JUDGE]: You reached that decision af ter consultation with y o ur attorney ?

4[ JOINER]: Yes, sir.

[ JUDGE]: Any

f orm of pressure or -- [ JOINER]: No, sir. [ JUDGE]: – threats or coercion, any thing of that nature? [ JOINER]: No, sir; nothing like that. ¶10. A d d i t i o n a l l y , prior t o this case, Joiner had appeared in f ront of the tr i a l j u d g e

num erous tim es regardin g o t h er f elony charges and entered guilty pleas. The t rial judge noted when deciding whether to deny the m o tion f or a psy c hological evaluation that, during

t h o s e prior occasions, there had never been any m ention of t he need f o r a c o mp e t e n c y evaluation. Joiner was f

a m i liar with the plea-bargain sy stem , and the judge had previously had the opportunity

to observe Joiner’s decision-m aking abilities. ¶11. The r ecord indicates that Join e r w a s alert and understood the nature of t he proceedings and the circum stances a nd c o n s e q u e nces surrounding his actions. Joiner showed no signs of m ental def

ect. “[ T ]he burden of proof i n t h i s c a s e rests upon the m ovant[ ] to prove by substantial evidence t hat the def endant is m entally incom

petent to stand trial.” Richardson

v. State , 7 6 7 So. 2d 195, 203 (¶41) (Miss. 2000). Joiner participated in his def ense and was able to assist his attorney and e xpress him self in a clear and rational m anner. W e f ind Joiner f ailed to show there was any r easonable ground to conclude he was not com petent to stand trial, and the trial co u r t did not abuse its discretion in d eny ing the petition to determ ine

com petency

. Thus, Joiner’s a ssignm ent of e rror is without m e r i t

. T h e j udgm ent of the Jackson County

Circuit Court is af

f irm e d.

5¶12. AFFIRMED

.

L E E , C . J . , I R

V I N G , P . J . , B A R

N E S , C A R L T O N , FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.

6