Opinion ID: 1498881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Standards in Tennessee

Text: The foregoing principles are consistent with our analogous decisions regarding the mental competency of a post-conviction petitioner. In Seals, 23 S.W.3d at 279, a next friend initiated a post-conviction petition on behalf of an inmate and sought to toll the one-year statute of limitations. Although the next friend procedure was not contested in that case, we held that due process requires tolling of the statute of limitations if mental incompetence deprives a petitioner of a reasonable opportunity to pursue post-conviction relief. Id. We later clarified that in order to toll the statute of limitations for filing a post-conviction petition, a prima facie showing of mental incompetency requires more than conclusions or assertions and instead requires specific factual allegations that demonstrate the petitioner's inability to manage his personal affairs or understand his legal rights and liabilities. State v. Nix, 40 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tenn.2001). We stated that [t]he required prima facie showing may be satisfied by attaching to the petition affidavits, depositions, medical reports, or other credible evidence that contain specific factual allegations showing the petitioner's incompetence. Id. We further explained: While affidavits and depositions of mental health professionals may be utilized, they are not essential, and a petitioner may rely upon affidavits and depositions from family members, prison officials, attorneys, or any other person who has knowledge of facts that demonstrate either the petitioner's inability to manage his personal affairs or the petitioner's inability to understand his legal rights and liabilities. Id. Although not strictly in a post-conviction sense, this Court has adopted similar standards in enforcing the long-existing principle that a mentally incompetent inmate may not be executed under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. See Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tenn.1999). In Van Tran , we held that a prima facie claim regarding an inmate's present mental incompetency requires evidence of the inmate's present mental incompetency and not simply unsupported assertions of mental incompetency. Id. at 269; see also Thompson v. State, 134 S.W.3d 168, 177 (Tenn.2004). As we explained in Van Tran : [W]e adopt a rule that places the burden on the prisoner to make a threshold showing that he or she is presently incompetent. This burden may be met by the submission of affidavits, depositions, medical reports, or other credible evidence sufficient to demonstrate that there exists a genuine question regarding petitioner's present competency. In most circumstances, the affidavits, depositions, or medical reports attached to the prisoner's petition should be from psychiatrists, psychologists, or other mental health professionals. . . . If the trial court is satisfied there exists a genuine disputed issue regarding the prisoner's present competency, then a hearing should be held. 6 S.W.3d at 269. We believe that a similar process is appropriate in determining whether a petition for post-conviction relief may be filed by a next friend on behalf of an inmate who has not signed the petition or verified the allegations under oath. A prima facie showing to file a post-conviction petition as next friend requires evidence of an inmate's present mental incompetency by attaching to the petition affidavits, depositions, medical reports, or other credible evidence that contain specific factual allegations showing the petitioner's incompetence. Nix, 40 S.W.3d at 464. Mere assertions or allegations of past or present mental incompetency are not sufficient; instead, the supporting evidence must satisfy the standard required in determining whether mental incompetency may toll the post-conviction statute of limitations. See id. If a prima facie showing is satisfied, and if there is likewise a showing that the putative next friend is acting in the best interests of the petitioner, see Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 166, 110 S.Ct. 1717, additional hearings may be held for a determination of mental competency. Nix, 40 S.W.3d at 464. With these principles in mind, we will examine the petitions filed by the Defender on behalf of Holton and Reid.