Opinion ID: 4514756
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dr. Storer’s and Dickerson’s

Text: Understandings of Post-Conviction Proceedings ¶18. Dickerson argues that neither he nor Dr. Storer has a factual understanding of postconviction proceedings or of what a petitioner must be able to do to assist post-conviction counsel. Dickerson’s counsel argues that post-conviction proceedings, while backward looking, also involve an analysis of new facts and claims that Dickerson does not have a factual understanding of the nature of these proceedings. The State disagrees and argues that Dr. Storer and Dickerson both possess a factual understanding of post-conviction 9 proceedings. ¶19. The purpose of the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act “is to provide prisoners with a procedure, limited in nature, to review those objections, defenses, claims, questions, issues or errors which in practical reality could not be or should not have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.” Mississippi Code Section 99-39-3(2) (Rev. 2015). ¶20. Dickerson uses his own statement, as recorded in Dr. Storer’s report, to support his contention that he lacks sufficient understanding of post-conviction proceedings. When Dr. Storer asked him what sorts of questions his post-conviction attorneys were asking him when they met, he replied, “They’re going on what they already know. That’s the way postconviction is. They’re going on everything that’s already been written.” ¶21. Dickerson also claimed that he had sent letters to his post-conviction counsel regarding his post-conviction proceedings but that he had yet to receive a reply. While this act does not necessarily mean that Dickerson has the ability to effectively communicate with his counsel, it at least shows that he possesses a willingness to communicate with his counsel and has made an active and rational effort to do so. ¶22. Dickerson then argues that Dr. Storer does not understand the nature of postconviction proceedings either. He offers Dr. Storer’s testimony at the competency hearing at which Dr. Storer stated, “In my consultations with attorneys . . . I have been advised . . . that post-conviction review is primarily a review of the records to make sure that everything . . . was done correctly and in accordance with the rules and procedures as they stood at the 10 time of the trial,” to support his argument. Dickerson, however, prematurely cuts off Dr. Storer’s statement from his testimony at the competency hearing. In the next sentence of his testimony, Dr. Storer stated, [Post-conviction review] also includes[s] new things. For example, the Atkins ruling by the Supreme court. That ended up being applied retrospective[ly]. Miller v. Alabama rulings have been applied retrospectively. So even though those may not have applied at the time of the trial, . . . in post-conviction proceedings, they may be brought up if they applied and were not brought up [at trial]. My understanding is that all of that is encompassed in postconviction review. ¶23. At the hearing, Dr. Storer also testified that it was his understanding that postconviction attorneys are supposed to engage in investigation of facts that were not presented at trial. Dr. Storer’s statement from his testimony, read in totality, does not support Dickerson’s argument that Dr. Storer lacks an understanding of the nature of post-conviction proceedings. ¶24. Dr. Storer explained that he used his understanding of the nature of post-conviction proceedings in determining that Dickerson possesses a reasonable, factual and rational understanding of the proceedings. Therefore, the trial court’s finding that Dickerson had a rational understanding of the nature of post-conviction relief proceedings was not manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. 11