Opinion ID: 2786325
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Matters in Extenuation and Clemency

Text: Clayton also claims that, even if he is competent to be executed under Ford and Panetti, he does not meet the standard for competence in section 552.060.1, RSMo 2000, which requires that he be able to understand “matters in extenuation, arguments for executive clemency or reasons why the sentence should not be carried out.” The Court rejects this claim. As described above, this Court found in Clayton II that there was no basis to suspect that Clayton was unable to assist counsel appropriately at (and prior to) his original trial. Clayton II, 63 S.W.3d at 209. During his federal habeas proceedings, the District Court found that Clayton was competent to assist counsel with those proceedings. Competency Order at 15-18. This finding was based on the extensive testing and evaluation by Dr. Preston, who found that Clayton’s “cognitive deficits did not appear to negatively impact his ability to understand his legal proceedings.” Dr. Preston’s Report, at p. 30. The District Court relied extensively on Dr. Preston’s conclusions that Clayton had “no significant impairment in memory” and could – with some work – communicate effectively with counsel. Competency Order at pp. 17, 15 (citing Dr. Preston’s report at pp. 26-28). Clayton provides no evidence that these capabilities have declined materially since 2006 and that, as a result of that decline, his counsel have been unable to prepare a clemency application on his behalf. As the District Court held, the question of whether 29 an inmate is competent to assist in his defense must be analyzed in light of the proceedings underway at the time and the demands those proceedings place on the inmate’s memory and ability to communicate. Competency Order, at 13-15. Greatest prior to and during trial, these demands fall off markedly throughout the appellate, post-conviction, and federal habeas proceedings. At the end of this process, when the issue turns to clemency, there is very little that depends on the defendant suddenly recollecting some new fact that will result in a new argument or ground for clemency. Certainly this is so in this case. Clayton’s life has been chronicled exhaustively by counsel in the nearly two decades since his crime. Counsel have thoroughly mined the original trial for every conceivable legal and factual argument. As the petition in this case shows clearly, there is nothing about Clayton or this crime that has not been known and debated at multiple stages of his legal proceedings. And, as noted above, Clayton’s telephone records and the evaluations of Drs. Foster, Logan and Reynolds show that Clayton recalls the salient details from 1996 quite clearly and is aware that both he and his counsel continue to search for arguments to preclude his execution. Accordingly, even though the effects of his brain injury and increasing age make it more difficult for Clayton, there is no evidence that he is not capable of understanding “matters in extenuation, arguments for executive clemency or reasons why the sentence should not be carried out” as required by section 552.060.1 2000.