Opinion ID: 615299
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Expand the COA

Text: This court will issue a COA when the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” by demonstrating (1) “that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Mitchell v. Epps, 641 F.3d 134, 142 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or (2) “that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Id. In making the decision whether to grant a COA, this court’s examination is limited to a “threshold inquiry,” which consists of “an overview of the claims in the habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits.” Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 336 (2003). Jackson requests an expanded COA on three issues: (1) whether he was entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction; (2) whether the state trial court denied Jackson his right to an independent, reliable, and competent mental health evaluation; and (3) whether Jackson’s trial counsel was ineffective for (a) failing to develop and present mitigating evidence, and (b) failing to secure 12 Case: 10-70029 Document: 00511631846 Page: 13 Date Filed: 10/13/2011 No. 10-70029 a timely and competent mental health evaluation. We address each of these issues in turn.
Jackson argues that the state trial court should have allowed the jury to consider the lesser-included, non-capital offense of manslaughter, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 638 (1980) (hereinafter lesser-included offense claim). We disagree. Beck stands for the proposition that juries in capital cases must have the opportunity to consider a lesser-included noncapital offense when the evidence would have supported such a verdict. See Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605, 611 (1982). Here, the evidence does not establish that Jackson was entitled to a lesser instruction. Jackson was indicted and found guilty of four counts of capital murder, pursuant to section 97-3-19 of the Mississippi Code, for committing the “crime of felonious abuse and/or battery of a child in violation of subsection (2) of Section 97-5-39.” Jackson claims that the district court and state courts erred in holding that he was not entitled to an instruction on the lesser-included offenses articulated in subsection 97-3-27(2) and section 97-3-35, both homicide statutes that require a showing that the defendant acted “without malice.” Under Mississippi law, a party acts with malice if the act is done with “deliberate design.” Tran v. State, 681 So.2d 514, 517 (Miss. 1996). Here, there is substantial evidence that Jackson acted with malice. Notably, on the day of the murders, Jackson cut the phone line to his mother’s house before entering the house. Jackson even inquired of his sister to make sure the phones did not work. Jackson also asked if the children could talk before he committed the murders. Furthermore, Jackson told his sister that he came on two previous occasions to kill them and that this time he was going to kill them all. Thus, the district court’s determination, on Jackson’s lesser-included offense claim, is not debatable or wrong and does not necessitate further 13 Case: 10-70029 Document: 00511631846 Page: 14 Date Filed: 10/13/2011 No. 10-70029 discussion. See Mitchell, 641 F.3d at 142. Accordingly, we deny Jackson’s request to expand the COA to include his lesser-included offense claim.
Jackson claims that the state trial court’s decision to appoint Dr. Michael Whelan, a psychologist, to conduct Jackson’s mental health evaluation was an unreasonable application of Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (hereinafter Ake claim). Jackson explains that Whelan, who at the time was an employee of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), treated him for depression prior to trial. Therefore, Jackson contends, Whelan had a conflict of interest and was not competent to make an independent and reliable psychological examination of Jackson. This argument is without merit. As an initial matter, we note that Jackson’s Ake claim is not procedurally barred. On post-conviction review, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the claim was procedurally barred pursuant to subsection 99-39-21(2) of the Mississippi Code. Thus, the district court concluded that the claim was not exhausted. Subsection 99-39-21(2) procedurally bars the Mississippi Supreme Court from reviewing an argument in a petition for post-conviction relief that was disposed of on direct appeal. In other words, the provision has the same effect as res judicata and prevents the re-litigation of claims. The Supreme Court has explained that res judicata does not prevent federal review of a habeas claim. See Cone v. Bell, 129 S. Ct. 1769, 1781 (2009). Similarly, when a claim is procedurally barred pursuant to subsection 99–39–21(2), federal courts are not prevented from reviewing the merits of a claim, as long as the claim was not procedurally barred for some other reason. See Foster v. Johnson, 293 F.3d 766, 787 n.12 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, there was no procedural bar to the district court’s consideration of Jackson’s Ake claim. Because the merits of the claim were examined by the Mississippi Supreme Court on direct appeal, the claim was examined by the state’s highest court and properly exhausted. See 28 14 Case: 10-70029 Document: 00511631846 Page: 15 Date Filed: 10/13/2011 No. 10-70029 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Therefore, we are not barred from reviewing the merits of Jackson’s Ake claim. Although the district court held that Jackson’s Ake claim was procedurally barred, it ruled in the alternative that the claim was without merit. Specifically, the district court determined that the state trial court’s determination was not counter to the Supreme Court’s determination in Ake. We agree. In Ake, the Court held that a defendant has the right to a mental health expert: (1) “when a defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial” and (2) “in the context of a capital sentencing proceeding, when the State presents psychiatric evidence of the defendant’s future dangerousness.” 470 U.S. at 83. Here, the trial court selected two mental health experts to evaluate Jackson, Whelan and Dr. Robert McKinley, a psychiatrist. Thus, even if we assume that Whelan did not give Jackson an independent and reliable psychological examination as Jackson alleges, he still had the assistance of another court-appointed psychiatrist, McKinley. Furthermore, after Jackson protested Whelan’s and McKinley’s evaluations, the trial court gave Jackson funds to hire Dr. Timothy Summers, a psychiatrist that Jackson selected. Therefore, other than Whelan, Jackson received the assistance of two mental health experts, which is more than Ake requires. We conclude that the district court correctly held that Jackson’s claim is without merit and does not warrant a COA.
Jackson argues that Walls was ineffective because he was allegedly dilatory in objecting to Dr. Whelan’s appointment and in requesting that Jackson be evaluated by an independent, conflict-free mental health professional (hereinafter mental health evaluation claim). Jackson further argues that, although trial counsel did present evidence of remorse and family forgiveness, 15 Case: 10-70029 Document: 00511631846 Page: 16 Date Filed: 10/13/2011 No. 10-70029 a great deal of mitigating evidence was ignored (hereinafter mitigating evidence claim). Both arguments are not sufficient grounds for this court to grant Jackson a COA on this issue.
Under Strickland, counsel’s actions are “ineffective” if the actions were so deficient that it cannot be said that he was functioning as “counsel” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment. 466 U.S. at 687. Jackson’s trial counsel was not dilatory, unreasonable, or otherwise ineffective for not demanding from the court an expert of Jackson’s choosing, a service that Jackson was not entitled to have under federal law. The Supreme Court explicitly stated in Ake that a defendant does not have “a constitutional right to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to hire his own.” 470 U.S. at 83. Moreover, the record indicates that counsel diligently requested that the trial court allow Jackson to select an expert. During pre-trial and again after the parties were presented with Whelan’s and McKinley’s reports, Walls requested an expert of Jackson’s choosing. As previously explained, the trial court granted this request and gave Jackson funds to hire Summers, a psychiatrist he selected. Notably, after consulting with Summers about his report, Jackson decided to withdraw his insanity defense. In sum, Jackson’s claim that Walls was dilatory in requesting an independent mental health evaluation is without merit.
Jackson argues that his case is factually analogous to Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) because, like the defendant’s counsel in Williams, Walls failed to present mitigating evidence during sentencing. This argument is also unavailing. In Williams, the Supreme Court found that the defendant was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence at sentencing. Id. at 390–91. The only mitigating evidence trial counsel presented during 16 Case: 10-70029 Document: 00511631846 Page: 17 Date Filed: 10/13/2011 No. 10-70029 sentencing was the fact that the petitioner turned himself in and demonstrated remorse for his actions. Id. at 398. This, in conjunction with the fact that counsel failed to explore several other mitigating factors, led to the conclusion that the defendant’s counsel was ineffective. Id. at 396–97. Williams is immediately distinguishable from the circumstances in Jackson’s case. First, unlike the defendant’s counsel in Williams, Jackson’s attorney presented extensive mitigating evidence during the sentencing proceedings. Witnesses testified as to Jackson’s self-elected choice to turn himself into authorities, his remorse, anger disorder, potential metabolic disorders, toxic disorder, traumatic brain injuries, low IQ, and his lack of criminal or anti-social behavior prior to the murders. Second, there exists none of the additional mitigating evidence in Jackson’s case that existed in Williams. For example, Jackson does not claim that his attorney failed to return phone calls or present evidence of his good behavior while incarcerated or that there is evidence of child abuse in his history. Therefore, the facts of the two cases do not align. The district court’s determination that Jackson’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance is not debatable or wrong. Mitchell, 641 F.3d at 142. Accordingly, we do not grant Jackson’s request for a COA on these grounds.