Opinion ID: 2786325
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Preston

Text: Dr. Preston examined Clayton in 2005 at the request of the District Court in which Clayton’s federal habeas petition was being heard. As discussed above, the District Court thoroughly reviewed Dr. Preston’s report and relied heavily upon it in reaching the conclusion that Clayton was competent to participate in federal habeas proceedings. In so holding, the District Court reasoned that the standard for competence to proceed with habeas must require greater abilities than the minimal standard for competence to be executed. Dr. Preston’s report exhibits this same understanding because, even though Dr. Preston’s ultimate opinion was that Clayton was not competent to proceed with his habeas petition, she had no doubt that Clayton was competent to be executed. 5) Does Mr. Clayton understand that he is to be executed and the reason for the execution (i.e., the killing of Officer Christopher Castetter)? Yes. Mr. Clayton was fully aware of the fact that he had been convicted of murdering Officer Christopher Castetter. Additionally, he expressed the understanding that he had been sentenced to death for this crime. According to Mr. Clayton, the method of execution for the state of Missouri is lethal injection. Dr. Preston’s report at p. 68. Based on this conclusion, as well as the objective test results and subjective studies of Clayton described throughout Dr. Preston’s report, the District Court rejected Clayton’s claim that he was not competent to be executed. The District Court denied a certificate of appealability on this claim, holding that no reasonable jurist could disagree about this conclusion. 22 This Court agrees. Though the District Court’s decision that Clayton was competent to be executed in 2006 does not dispose of the question now before this Court, Dr. Preston’s concessions and the other data in her 2005 report are still applicable and have been endorsed in the last two months by Dr. Foster and Dr. Logan. With no compelling evidence of any material change in his competence, this Court can reach no different conclusion from the one reached by the District Court in 2006.