Opinion ID: 1810649
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to litigate competency

Text: ¶ 37. Crawford next complains that counsel was deficient for not litigating Crawford's overall competency and, specifically, his competency while on medication. In fact, Crawford appears to advocate that the lack of a hearing on competency is automatic grounds for a review of a prisoner's petition for post conviction relief using the Eighth Amendment jurisprudence announced by the United States Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). Though unwilling to expand Atkins to such an extent, we are certainly willing to agree, for the sake of argument, counsel was deficient for not litigating competency, notwithstanding the fact that Crawford had been found competent for trial in an unrelated matter some 11 months prior and that there had been no documented changes in his condition from that point to the trial now in question. ¶ 38. However, this still only answers half of the question before us. We are still to determine whether Crawford was prejudiced by counsels' deficient performance. As stated above, the applicable standard is whether there exists a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different, meaning a `probability sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome.' Mohr v. State, 584 So.2d 426, 430 (Miss.1991). ¶ 39. As Chief Justice Pittman recently wrote for the Court in Simon v. State : At this stage in the proceedings, this Court need merely consider whether (the prisoner in question's) petition, affidavits, and trial record render it sufficiently likely that he received ineffective assistance of counsel so that an evidentiary hearing should be held. `Put otherwise, on the papers and record before us, can we say with confidence that at any evidentiary hearing (petitioner) will not be able to show that he has been denied effective assistance of counsel.' 857 So.2d 668, 683 (Miss.2003) (citations omitted). ¶ 40. Showing prejudice is where Crawford fails in this argument. In support, Crawford offers three exhibits, labeled K, L, and F. Exhibit K is an assortment of medical records requested by Crawford from the Northeast Mississippi Medical Center in Tupelo. In his petition, Crawford uses this information to show that he suffered a seizure and was transported to the medical center for treatment and testing. ¶ 41. Exhibit L is a signed affidavit from Lemly D. Hutt Jr., Ph. D. Dr. Hutt is a clinical psychologist who had been treating Crawford for months prior to his unrelated 1993 trial and originally found Crawford competent for trial. In his petition, Crawford alleges that Dr. Hutt, after learning of the seizure and resulting medication, reversed his position and found Crawford incompetent for trial. It is Crawford's position that Exhibit K supports such a proposition. However, such is not the case. ¶ 42. Despite having not seen Crawford since his seizure at the time of the affidavit, Hutt relays information from defense counsel that due to the medication, Crawford appeared groggy and drugged, is experiencing dizziness and is sometimes incoherent. In the remainder of the paragraph, Hutt notes that it was apparent that at that time, the treating physicians were attempting to determine the correct dosage of medication for Crawford. In the subsequent paragraph, Dr. Hutt states [u]ntil I am given an opportunity to re-examine Mr. Crawford and review the results of the tests performed on him as a result of these seizures, I am unable to assess his competency to stand trial with certainty. The closest this document comes to stating that Crawford was incompetent was Dr. Hutt's statement that I can say, based on these facts relayed to me that there is a probability that he is currently incompetent to stand trial. ¶ 43. This Court has already indirectly ruled on the weight that should be given to this affidavit. In the 1993 trial, Crawford's counsel raised the issue of his competency while medicated and used this affidavit along with one from Dr. Mark Webb. See Crawford, 787 So.2d at 1242. As this Court stated, both expressed concerns regarding the effect of both Lithium and Dilantin on Crawford's competency to stand trial. Id. However, the State countered with the testimony of Dr. Reb McMichael, who stated that the levels of Lithium administered to Crawford was barely... therapeutic or lower than therapeutic and that the levels of Dilantin administered was 100 milligrams three times a day and that such was not expected to interfere with his ability to interact with his attorney. Id. This would have put Crawford and counsel for this petition on notice as to the levels of Dilantin that Crawford may have been on, yet there is no affidavit provided in the petition as to the effects of such a dosage on Crawford. ¶ 44. The only evidence that Crawford provides as to his alleged incompetency is in Exhibit F. This exhibit is an affidavit from Crawford's father wherein he states: Additionally, throughout the trial of the instant matter my son was medicated such that it affected the way he appeared in the courtroom. On several occasions Charles was incoherent and unable to respond to simple questions. There were also several days when Charles sat with his head slumped down or his back to the jury. ¶ 45. Other than these three exhibits, Crawford offers this Court nothing more than allegations, arguments, and inapplicable case law. Counsel should have requested that the trial court take note of any changes in Crawford's situation since the previous trial and again rule on his competency based on such changes. Counsel was deficient for not having done so. ¶ 46. However, Crawford must also show prejudice and such is his burden to carry. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Thus, it is now Crawford's burden to show facts which would have changed since the original determination, or to provide an affidavit by a doctor who would have testified as to his incompetency, or perhaps to have simply found how much medication Crawford was on at the time and provided a medical opinion as to the effects of such a level of medication. ¶ 47. However, he has not done so. He has merely provided this Court with proof that he had a seizure and no medication, proof that one doctor was doubtful of his competency, and his father's assertions that his medication affected the way he presented himself at trial. Thus, Crawford has not carried his burden in regards to prejudice. Therefore, this claim fails.