Opinion ID: 1797214
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether Defense Counsel's Failure to Request Transfer to Youth Court Amounted to the Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Text: Foster argues that the death penalty is unconstitutional due to a lack of particularized finding by the circuit court in retaining original jurisdiction over Foster and not transferring him to the youth court. This issue has already been challenged on direct appeal. See Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263, 1292 (Miss. 1994). Foster has merely camouflaged the issue by couching the claim as ineffective assistance of counsel. We have repeatedly held that a defendant is procedurally barred by waiver from making a challenge to a capital sentencing scheme as a whole in a petition for postconviction relief where the issue was capable of determination at trial and/or on direct appeal but was not raised, and defendant failed to show cause or actual prejudice for not raising the issue on direct appeal. Lockett v. State, 614 So.2d 898 (Miss. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1040, 114 S.Ct. 681, 126 L.Ed.2d 649 (1994); Smith v. State, 477 So.2d 191 (Miss. 1985). Thus, the issue of whether the death penalty is unconstitutional due to a lack of particularized finding in the youth court is a procedurally barred issue. We cannot consider the merits of this issue, as it was already dealt with on the direct appeal. Foster must remember that post-conviction relief is very limited and deals with only those issues undetectable at trial or the appellate level. For the purposes of this petition, the only question that Foster could pose is whether Foster's trial attorney was ineffective by failing to request a transfer proceeding from circuit court to youth court, and if ineffective, whether this error prejudiced his defense. The governing statute at the time of Foster's trial allowed the circuit judge, upon a finding that it would be in the best interest of such child and in the interest of justice, ... at any stage of the proceedings prior to the attachment of jeopardy, [to] transfer such proceedings to the youth court for further proceedings... . Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-159 (Supp. 1994). As we stated in the direct appeal, a youth court generally engages in a certification procedure before transferring the juvenile to a circuit court, however, [u]nder Mississippi law, these juvenile certification procedures do not take place if a child commits an act, `which if committed by an adult would be punishable under state or federal law by life imprisonment or death, ... because original jurisdiction is vested in the circuit courts under such circumstances.' Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-151(1) (Supp. 1992). Foster v. State, 639 So.2d at 1293. Thus, under the law, Foster at age 17, could be tried and convicted of a capital offense and receive the death sentence, without there ever having been a preliminary determination in the youth court that he should be tried as an adult. Foster v. State, 639 So.2d at 1293. Mississippi law clearly allows a person under the age of eighteen years, charged with a capital offense, to request by proper motion that the circuit court conduct a special hearing, considering the person's age, lack of prior offenses, likelihood of successful rehabilitation and other factors which favor sending the case to the youth court rather than continuing in circuit court. Had such a procedure been requested, Foster would have had the same individualized consideration in circuit court that would have been available to him in a certification hearing in the youth court. Foster v. State, 639 So.2d at 1297. Thus, we must analyze the issue in terms of whether Farrow was reasonable for not requesting such a motion, and whether such failure resulted in prejudicing Foster's defense. In this regard, Foster's application for post-conviction collateral relief cites no authority stating that it is ineffective for counsel to not request a special hearing to determine transfer to youth court. He merely states that trial counsel must not have known that this procedure was available to him, and that failure to know this constitutes a failure to know the law, and thus, is a textbook example of deficiency. The record in no way indicates that trial counsel was unaware of the statutes in regard to juvenile court versus circuit court. In fact, the record shows that Foster's counsel recognized that juvenile law concerning confessions does not apply in a suppression hearing when the defendant is being tried as an adult, but he was making a good faith argument for an extension of the law. As we previously stated, the issue of whether a capital case juvenile is transferred back to a youth court is within the sound discretion of the circuit judge. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, even assuming trial counsel's failure to request such a finding was legally unreasonable, there was no prejudice or harm to Foster. Foster's claim fails because he has not shown prejudice. The decision to transfer from circuit court to youth court is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. This fact is evidenced by the word may used in the statute. The standard upon which the trial court may make such a decision is in the best interest of such child and the interest of justice. Had Farrow requested such a finding, the trial judge would have found that Foster was seventeen and one-half years old, on the brink of eighteen years of age, and while he did not have any significant criminal history, he had a violent, selfish nature, exhibited uncooperative tendencies and according to the Whitfield Report, had the maturity to know right from wrong. Attorney Farrow would be hard-pressed to convince the judge that his client would not have committed these types of acts six months from the time of the crime, and it was only because he lacked those critical six months that he committed the crimes due to his immaturity. These elements will hardly send a case back to youth court. The United States Supreme Court only requires that there be individualized consideration given to capital offenders under eighteen years of age, not necessarily particularized findings. Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, 375, 109 S.Ct. 2969, 106 L.Ed.2d 306 reh'g denied, 492 U.S. 937, 110 S.Ct. 23, 106 L.Ed.2d 635 (1989). We find that Foster's age and his lack of a prior history of criminal activity were presented; he did indeed receive individualized consideration as to his maturity and moral culpability. Additionally, counsel made a good faith effort to extend the statutes concerning a juvenile confession where Foster was being tried as an adult. Thus, even if there was no full application of Mississippi's juvenile transfer statute, it was firstly, not required, and secondly, not resulting in any prejudice. The issue is procedurally barred. Alternatively, considering the merits of this issue; we find none exists. No true new issues have been raised. However, any attempt to raise a new legal theory or ground at this point would be procedurally barred. Miss Code Ann. § 99-39-21(2) (Supp. 1994), states: (2) The litigation of a factual issue at trial and on direct appeal of a specific state or federal legal theory or theories shall constitute a waiver of all other state or federal legal theories which could have been raised under said factual issue; and any relief sought under this chapter upon said facts but upon different state or federal legal theories shall be procedurally barred absent a showing of cause and actual prejudice. Foster's petition does not meet the requirements to overcome the procedural bar. In addition, Foster is attempting to relitigate this issue under a new heading. The true color of Foster's claim is that his death sentence is unconstitutional because he was placed in adult court without particularized findings. His main concern is the particularity of his age. Foster's age was individually considered by the jury. Foster was born January 8, 1972 and committed the crime of capital murder on June 10, 1989  i.e. he was seventeen years, six months and two days old. This was no child; this was a man. The jury was asked to consider his age as one of the mitigating circumstances. In addition, the primary concern of the United States Supreme Court regarding the death penalty and defendants under age eighteen was individualized consideration, not particularized findings. Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, 109 S.Ct. 2969, 106 L.Ed.2d 306 reh'g denied, 492 U.S. 937, 110 S.Ct. 23, 106 L.Ed.2d 635 (1989). Such findings only assured such consideration, but the Court did not make such findings constitutionally required. In addition, when the United States Supreme Court determined that the death sentence was per se unconstitutional when applied to children under the age of sixteen, the court had utilized its statutory provision which allowed certification of a child to be tried as an adult. Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 108 S.Ct. 2687, 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988). Therefore, particularized findings cannot be the constitutional key. As for standards of common decency, the Court stated that out of thirty-seven states recognizing the death penalty, twelve states refusing to allow the death sentence for a seventeen year old was not enough. Stanford, 492 U.S. 361, 109 S.Ct. 2969. Common standards of decency within society must not have changed much since Stanford and Thompson because the Court denied certiorari in this issue for Foster in 1995. In reality, this claim has been previously determined by this Court on direct appeal. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3) (Supp. 1994) reads, (3) The doctrine of res judicata shall apply to all issues, both factual and legal, decided at trial and on direct appeal. No cause or prejudice standards are included in the statute for a bar of res judicata. This Court addressed this claim on the merits as well as recognizing a procedural bar in Foster, 639 So.2d at 1292-98. In fact, Foster also raised the same claim in his petition for writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court, but his petition was denied and rehearing was denied. Foster v. Mississippi, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1365, 131 L.Ed.2d 221 reh'g denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1992, 131 L.Ed.2d 878 (1995). Based on the foregoing arguments, Foster's claim cannot succeed. Foster has restated an old claim under a new title. Foster has not met the standard of Strickland for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and no new legal or factual theory has been presented. Foster has not met the requirements necessary to overcome a procedural bar. This repetitive claim falls under the doctrine of res judicata.