Opinion ID: 797839
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial Court's Failure to Appoint an Independent Psychologist

Text: 27 Durr contends in habeas claim forty-two that the trial court's failure to appoint an independent psychologist to assist trial counsel with preparation for the mitigation phase denied him a fundamentally fair trial. Initially we must determine whether the district court erred in ruling that habeas claim forty-two was procedurally defaulted. The district court reasoned that claim forty-two was procedurally defaulted because Durr knew the claim existed during direct appeal, but failed to raise it at that time. 28 This Court has held that Ohio's use of the doctrine of res judicata to preclude a merits determination of a claim raised in post-conviction proceedings that had been, or should have been, raised on direct appeal is an adequate and independent state ground barring federal habeas review. Coleman v. Mitchell, 268 F.3d 417, 429 (6th Cir.2001); Seymour v. Walker, 224 F.3d 542, 555 (6th Cir.2000) (Ohio has a rule that claims must be raised on direct appeal if possible; otherwise, res judicata bars their litigation in subsequent state proceedings.). A claim is procedurally defaulted if there is a state procedural rule that the petitioner failed to follow, that the state courts actually enforced, and that constitutes an adequate and independent state ground to foreclose review of the federal constitutional claim. Maupin v. Smith, 785 F.2d 135, 138 (6th Cir.1986). However, the petitioner may excuse the default if he can show cause for failure to follow the rule and prejudice resulting therefrom. Id.; Poindexter v. Mitchell, 454 F.3d 564, 583 (6th Cir.2006). 29 As the Warden concedes, the district court incorrectly determined that habeas claim forty-two was procedurally defaulted, because the state courts adjudicated this claim on the merits on post-conviction review. 1 Although Durr could have presented the claim on direct appeal, because the state courts did not actually enforce the procedural rule requiring presentation of claims on direct appeal, the procedural default doctrine is not applicable. See Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 327, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985) (stating that [t]he mere existence of a basis for a state procedural bar does not deprive . . . [federal courts] of jurisdiction; the state court must actually have relied on the procedural bar as an independent basis for its disposition of the case); Bowling v. Parker, 344 F.3d 487, 499 (6th Cir.2003) (stating that there must be unambiguous state-court reliance on a procedural default for it to block this Court's review). Therefore, we review the merits of habeas claim forty-two. 30 On Durr's motion for delayed reconsideration, the Ohio Court of Appeals held that no duty existed on the part of the trial court to unilaterally appoint an expert on behalf of a defendant who is charged with a capital offense. Durr, No. 57140, at . The district court also found no merit in this claim, explaining that because trial counsel did not request the appointment of a psychologist, the trial court had no basis to determine whether such an expert was `reasonably necessary.' 2 31 Durr is not entitled to relief on this claim. As Durr concedes, trial counsel did not request the appointment of a psychologist from the trial court. Trial counsel Jerry Milano said, the most the Court would pay for any expert is $500.00, [so] we did not attempt to get any other experts, such as a pathologist, criminalist, psychologist, or mitigation specialist. In my experience, you cannot even get a qualified expert to talk to you for $500.00. 32 Durr nonetheless argues that the appointment of a psychologist would have provided the jury with mitigation evidence. In Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), the Supreme Court held that an indigent defendant is entitled to expert assistance in two scenarios: (1) where the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial; or (2) where the prosecution submits evidence of a capital defendant's future dangerousness through the state's own psychiatrists. Ake, 470 U.S. at 82-84, 105 S.Ct. 1087 (The risk of error from denial of [expert] assistance, as well as its probable value, is most predictably at its height when the defendant's mental condition is seriously in question . . . . [This] discussion compels a similar conclusion in the context of a capital sentencing proceeding, when the State presents psychiatric evidence of the defendant's future dangerousness.); see also Skaggs v. Parker, 235 F.3d 261, 272 (6th Cir.2000) (interpreting Ake to recognize that an indigent defendant is entitled to psychiatric assistance during sentencing if sanity was a significant issue at trial or state first presents evidence of future dangerousness). 33 Neither Ake scenario applies here. Durr did not allege that there was a significant issue as to his sanity at the time of trial nor did the prosecutor present evidence concerning his future dangerousness. In fact, during mitigation, when Durr's counsel referred to mental disease as a possible mitigation factor, he expressly stated that there's been no evidence of that, so that doesn't apply. Similarly, at no point during the prosecution's arguments at mitigation was evidence presented establishing Durr's future dangerousness. For this reason, the cases Durr cites are inapposite. Cf. Glenn v. Tate, 71 F.3d 1204, 1211 (6th Cir.1995) (pre-AEDPA case vacating defendant's death sentence where the jury did not hear evidence during mitigation that the crime was the product of defendant's mental retardation or organic brain disease); Powell v. Collins, 332 F.3d 376, 392 (6th Cir.2003) (pre-AEDPA case holding that the defendant was entitled to an independent psychiatrist after presenting sufficient facts that his diminished mental capacity would be his main defense at trial). 34 Thus, the state courts' decision cannot be contrary to, or an unreasonable application of Ake. Furthermore, to extend Ake to the facts of this case would force every trial court to appoint experts for indigent defendants even if not requested, or risk a subsequent challenge to the fairness of the trial. Such a result is not only an unnecessary expansion of Ake, but actually undermines the Court's subsequent discussion of Ake in Caldwell, 472 U.S. at 323 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 2633 (Given that Petitioner offered little more than undeveloped assertions that the requested assistance would be beneficial, we find no deprivation of due process in the trial judge's decision.); see also Carter v. Mitchell, 443 F.3d 517, 527 (6th Cir.2006) (holding that to establish ineffective assistance of counsel at mitigation for failure to obtain a mental health expert, there must be some evidence that the petitioner's mental health was at issue), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 955, 166 L.Ed.2d 730 (2007). 35 In short, the state court's decision was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The district court did not err in denying the merits of this claim. 36