Opinion ID: 1796846
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the circuit court used an erroneous legal standard in denying relief.

Text: Neal contends that the trial court erroneously applied a harmless error analysis in denying him post-conviction relief. The Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act, Miss Code Ann § 99-39-23(7) (Supp. 1995), states: No relief shall be granted under this chapter unless the prisoner proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to such. See Moore v. State, 587 So.2d 1193, 1196 (Miss. 1991); Schmitt v. State, 560 So.2d 148, 151 (Miss. 1990); McClendon v. State, 539 So.2d 1375 (Miss. 1989). If the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in coming to its decision, this Court will not hesitate to reverse and will give no deference to the findings of the trial court. Schmitt, 560 So.2d at 151; McClendon, 539 So.2d at 1377; Detroit Marine Engineering v. McRee, 510 So.2d 462, 467 (Miss. 1987); Bell v. City of Bay St. Louis, 467 So.2d 657, 661 (Miss. 1985). The trial court in making its ruling stated that Neal as the Movant had the burden of proof. After examining the depositions and listening to the testimony including that proffered by Dr. Kaufman, the court found as a matter of fact: One: That there has been no change in the mental retardation of the Movant since the commission of the crime and the trial held thereon. Two: That there has been no change as to the competency of the Movant either in a psychiatric vein or in a psychological vein or as to mental retardation. That the Court finds that there is absolutely no proof that the Defendant is in anywise in any changed condition today that he was in February of 1982 during the trial or in 1981 during the commission of the crime. Three: That taking all of the testimony before the Court, there is absolutely no proof that the Defendant was ever denied the right to testify. That the only difference in the testimony before the Court as to when a certain request occurred and whether or not it was during the first trial or the second trial, I believe Mr. Walker was the only one who thought it was during the second trial, and I believe everyone agreed it was during the sentencing phase, and I believe everyone agreed that the thing that was to be testified to was that Mr. Neal wanted to ask the jury to give him the death penalty, a fact the Court finds that the jury saw fit to do without Mr. Neal being required to make that request. The next finding of fact the Court makes is that from all of the testimony it is undisputed that had the Defendant decided to go forward with his testimony, the testimony that he allegedly desired to give would have been totally detrimental to the Defendant's case and certainly under no stretch of the imagination would have resulted in a positive result to the Defendant. And the Court finds that there is absolutely no reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been any different than the result that was obtained. From the foregoing findings of fact the Court concludes as a matter of law that the Plaintiff or Movant in this Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act has wholly failed to meet his burden of proof and to have this Court grant the relief sought. That this Court finds that the motion should be by this court denied; and it is therefore ordered and adjudged that all relief sought by the Movant herein be and the same is hereby denied and the Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief is hereby overruled. The trial court did make a finding of fact that if Neal had been denied the right to testify under the circumstances it would have been harmless error. However, this does not prove that he used harmless error as the legal standard in reaching his decision to deny relief. The trial court made several findings of fact before giving its final decision. Although he did not specifically state what Neal's burden of proof was, the trial judge stated that there was absolutely no proof that the Defendant was denied the right to testify. He went on to hold that as a matter of law Neal failed to meet his burden of proof under the Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act. The trial court was correct in stating that Neal did not meet his burden of proof of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he was denied the right to testify. Neal did not testify at the evidentiary hearing nor did he offer any evidence other than Dr. Kaufman's proffered testimony to show he did not voluntarily waive the right to testify. Both Joe Dale Walker and John Clay testified that any decision not to testify was ultimately made by Neal. Neal's sole argument lies in his attempt to once again bring his competence into issue. This issue is without merit.