Opinion ID: 2417351
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal

Text: Tokar has filed a motion requesting our leave to supplement the record with new evidence in the form of an affidavit by Dr. Genia Simmons, Ph.D. Dr. Simmons relied on educational and employment records, prison records, medical and psychological records, personal writings of Jeffrey Tokar, the trial and post-conviction relief hearing transcripts, and personal interviews with those who knew Tokar. However, Dr. Simmons did not actually examine Tokar because he refused to see her. Dr. Simmons concluded that at the time of his trial, at all times prior to his trial, dating back years before his arrest for the murder of Johnny Douglass, Jeffrey Lane Tokar suffered from severe mental illness in the form of Paranoid Personality Disorder... [rendering Tokar] unable to rationally understand the true nature of the proceedings against him and to rationally understand the true nature of the roles of the various participants in those proceedings, and that he was incapable of receiving, evaluating, or discussing with his attorneys, with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, their advice concerning his case. Dr. Simmons also concluded that this severe mental illness and condition has continued to exist at all times subsequent to his conviction ... and continuing to the present day and indefinitely into the future. Because this motion was filed after the conclusion of the trial and post-conviction relief hearing, however, we must deny defendant's request. A party may not supplement the record on appeal with documents never presented to the trial court and to which the opposing party has had no opportunity to respond. This evidence is not properly a part of the record before us and will not be considered because it involves matters not raised or considered at trial, or at the post-conviction relief hearing. Edwards v. Schoemehl, 765 S.W.2d 607, 610 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 906, 109 S.Ct. 3188, 105 L.Ed.2d 697 (1989). In addition, evidence of a post-trial competency determination is not applicable here. [1] A psychiatric competency evaluation cannot be ordered after the defendant is sentenced. State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d at 90; Shaw v. State, 686 S.W.2d 513, 515 (Mo.App.1985). Section 552.020 procedures are designed to remedy constitutional and statutory violations at trial ... [and] it is the effect of the disease or defect upon defendant's capacity to defend himself that is critical. Shaw, 686 S.W.2d at 515. The appropriate time period for determining Tokar's ability to defend himself ended after his sentencing. Tokar's motion to supplement the record on appeal is denied.