Court Opinion

ID: 9498900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:31:41.820723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:09.123183
License: Public Domain

MICHAEL, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
I concur in the judgment. I also concur in the majority’s analysis of James Campbell’s claims, with the exception of part VII, which concerns the applicability of Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), and part VIII, which concerns the applicability of Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 114 S.Ct. 2187, 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994). I write separately because I respectfully disagree with the majority on two matters that do not bear on the judgment. First, Ake is not satisfied by the appointment of a neutral psychiatrist. Second, a Simmons instruction could be required in the instance when a capital defendant is technically eligible for parole but state law mandates his imprisonment beyond the time he could possibly be alive.
I.
Campbell argues that the state court unreasonably applied Ake, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53, because Dr. Bob Rollins, the psychiatrist, (1) did not provide adequate expert assistance and (2) was a neutral expert who assisted both parties. I agree with the majority’s conclusion on the first point: Campbell cannot show that Dr. Rollins provided inadequate assistance. I disagree with the majority’s analysis on the second point to the extent that it suggests Ake might not require a court to appoint a non-neutral expert. See ante at 286 (“Even if Ake somehow required the court to appoint a non-neutral expert....”).
When a defendant demonstrates that his sanity is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the state must ensure the defendant access to a “competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.” Ake, 470 *290U.S. at 83, 105 S.Ct. 1087. Like appointed counsel, an expert appointed under Ake is to aid the defendant and function as a “basic tool[ ]” in his defense. Id. at 77,105 S.Ct. 1087. It is thus anticipated that an Ake expert will help the defense determine whether insanity is a viable defense and prepare the cross-examination of the state’s psychiatric witnesses. Id. at 82, 105 S.Ct. 1087. This assistance is required because it is “fundamentally unfair” for a state to proceed against an indigent defendant without ensuring access to “the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense.” Id. at 77, 105 S.Ct. 1087. As numerous other courts have determined, access to these “raw materials” requires more than permission to subpoena a neutral expert and question him on the stand. See Powell v. Collins, 332 F.3d 376, 391 (6th Cir.2003) (listing cases). The court-appointed psychiatrist must work on behalf of the defense.
Even though I believe that Ake requires more than the appointment of a neutral expert, I agree that Ake was satisfied in Campbell’s case. The trial court appointed Dr. Rollins “to assist the defendant in the evaluation, preparation and presentation of the defense in this case.” J.A. 54. As noted by the district court, “[o]nce [Dr. Rollins] was appointed by the court to act as the defense[’s psychiatric] expert, Rollins clearly understood his duty to examine Campbell on behalf of the defense and no other party." J.A. 4810 (emphasis added). Campbell’s Ake claim therefore fails.
II.
As our court has previously confirmed, the parameters of Simmons, 512 U.S. 154, 114 S.Ct. 2187, 129 L.Ed.2d 133, are governed by Justice O’Connor’s “decisive” concurring opinion in Ramdass v. Angelone, 530 U.S. 156, 120 S.Ct. 2113, 147 L.Ed.2d 125 (2000). See United States v. Stitt, 250 F.3d 878, 890 n. 11 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977) (“When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds ....”) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In Ramdass Justice O’Connor held that the petitioner was not entitled to a Simmons instruction because he was not “[injeligible for parole under, state law at the time of his sentencing.” Id. at 181, 114 S.Ct. 2187 (O’Connor, J., concurring). Recognizing that it can be difficult to determine what constitutes parole ineligibility, Justice O’Connor articulated a practical standard:
Where all that stands between a defendant and parole ineligibility under state law is a purely ministerial act [specifically, an act that is inevitable and foreordained under state law], Simmons entitles the defendant to inform the jury of that ineligibility ... even if he is not technically “parole ineligible” at the moment of sentencing.
Id. at 180, 114 S.Ct. 2187. Justice O’Con-nor went on to explain that Simmons “does not require courts to estimate the likelihood of future contingencies concerning the defendant’s parole ineligibility.” Id. at 181,114 S.Ct. 2187.
At first glance the Ramdass plurality’s holding looks similar to Justice O’Con-nor’s: it held that Simmons “applies only to instances where, as a legal matter, there is no possibility of parole if the jury decides the appropriate sentence is life in prison.” Id. at 169,114 S.Ct. 2187 (plurality opinion). The remainder of the plurality’s analysis, however, calls for a narrower application of Simmons than does the rule and analysis set forth in Justice O’Con-*291nor’s concurrence. For instance, as the majority notes, the Ramdass plurality rejected the suggestion that a “functional approach” to Simmons was appropriate. Id. Likewise, the Ramdass plurality suggested that Simmons cannot apply in a case where the court must inquire “whether a defendant will, at some point, be released from prison.” Id. Justice O’Con-nor’s concurrence, however, does not go as far. Unlike the plurality opinion, it specifically leaves open the possibility that a defendant could be entitled to a Simmons instruction even if he is “not technically ‘parole ineligible’ at the moment of sentencing.” Id. at 180, 114 S.Ct. 2187 (O’Con-nor, J., concurring).
Although Justice O’Connor’s concurrence is controlling, the majority rests its analysis largely on the holding and reasoning of the Ramdass plurality. See ante at 287 - 288. Because Justice O’Connor’s position represents the holding in Ramdass, see Marks, 430 U.S. at 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, her concurring opinion points us to the relevant question in this case: whether Campbell was ineligible for parole under state law at the time of his sentencing. See id. at 181, 114 S.Ct. 2187 (O’Connor, J., concurring).
Campbell argues that he was entitled to a Simmons instruction because, for all practical purposes, the only alternative to a death sentence was life without parole. According to Campbell,
If [he] had received a life sentence for the murder along with the two mandatory life sentences for the rapes, he would not have become eligible for parole until after he served an absolute minimum of sixty years [twenty years for each crime.] At that point, he would have been ninety-two years old. Only then could he begin serving the eighty years for the robbery, kidnapping, and burning offenses.
Appellant’s Br. at 18. The problem with Campbell’s argument is that he has not cited any provision in North Carolina law that conclusively establishes his parole ineligibility. For instance, although we are told that North Carolina judges follow the practice of ordering consecutive sentences in cases like Campbell’s, id. at 19, concurrent sentences were apparently authorized under state law at the time of Campbell’s sentencing. Therefore, it was not foreordained or inevitable (incapable of being prevented) that Campbell would die before becoming eligible for parole, if he was not sentenced to death. For this reason, I agree that he was not entitled to a Simmons instruction.
This is not to say, however, that a Simmons instruction is required only in instances where the only available alternative sentence to death is a formal sentence of life imprisonment that carries no possibility of parole as a matter of law. In other words, there might be instances when a defendant’s age and length of sentence will determine that he is entitled to a Simmons instruction. As I have said previously, Simmons might compel a sentencing court to allow a capital defendant to inform the jury of the true effect of an alternate life sentence. See Wilson v. Greene, 155 F.3d 396, 417 (4th Cir.1998) (Michael, J., concurring). Suppose that Campbell had been convicted of murder and four (instead of two) other crimes carrying mandatory life sentences. If consecutive sentences for the five crimes were mandatory, Campbell (who was thirty-two at sentencing) could not have been paroled until he reached 132 years of age. Under these circumstances, it would be fair to conclude that he is “[injeligible for parole under state law at the time of his sentencing.” Ramdass, 530 U.S. at 181, 120 S.Ct. 2113 (O’Connor, J., concurring). Such a conclusion requires no estimation of “the *292likelihood of future contingencies” because humans simply do not live that long. As Justice O’Connor said in Ramdass, “Where all that stands between a defendant and parole ineligibility under state law is a purely ministerial act [that is, one that is inevitable and foreordained under state law],” he is entitled to a Simmons instruction, “even if he is not technically ‘parole ineligible’ at the moment of sentencing.” 530 U.S. at 180, 120 S.Ct. 2113. That a defendant will die before he reaches 132 years of age is, by today’s standards, “inevitable and foreordained.”
Justice O’Connor’s use of the term “ministerial act” in her Ramdass concurrence is broad enough to cover my hypothetical. Her use of the words “inevitable” and “foreordained” to clarify the meaning of “purely ministerial act” shows that her rule contemplates a range of inevitable occurrences, beyond those commonly thought of as ministerial. Justice O’Con-nor apparently used the word “ministerial” because it was used by the petitioner to characterize the specific contingency at issue in Ramdass, the entry of a judgment against him as a result of a jury verdict finding him guilty of a crime. Id. at 174, 120 S.Ct. 2113 (plurality opinion) (citing-petitioner’s brief). “Ministerial” is defined broadly as “[o]f or relating to an act that involves obedience to instructions or laws instead of discretion, judgment, or skill.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1017 (8th ed.2004). Under this definition a judge’s imposition of mandatory consecutive sentences and a custodian’s automatic, seriatim execution of those sentences are ministerial acts, especially insofar as they involve no exercise of discretion and are foreordained under state law.
I agree that determining whether a defendant would be effectively parole ineligible could sometimes require extra effort. The majority’s contention that this prospect would “cast trial courts into a sea of uncertainty,” ante at 288-289, exaggerates the problem, however. A case such as the hypothetical I describe above casts no court or party into a sea of uncertainty because there is no genuine question whether a defendant could live to 132. Furthermore, it is critical to keep in mind that the Supreme Court articulated the Simmons rale not because it is a rule that is easily administered, but because due process requires it. See Simmons, 512 U.S. at 175, 114 S.Ct. 2187 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (explaining that due process requires that a defendant not be sentenced to death based on information that he had no opportunity to explain or deny). It is not unreasonable to expect a court to confront and resolve a difficult factual issue when doing so is necessary to protect a constitutional right. Furthermore, Justice O’Connor has given courts a workable standard to apply in determining when a defendant is parole ineligible under state law: when all that stands between a defendant and parole ineligibility is a ministerial act that is inevitable and foreordained under state law, the defendant is entitled to a Simmons instruction even if he is not technically parole ineligible at the moment of sentencing. This is the standard that controls today.