Opinion
No. 2010-KA-01480-COA.
November 29, 2011.
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JAMES T. KITCHENS JR., DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/24/2010
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH TEN YEARS TO SERVE, TEN YEARS SUSPENDED, AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: LESLIE S. LEE, ERIN ELIZABETH PRIDGEN
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: FORREST ALLGOOD
BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., MYERS AND ISHEE, JJ.
1. ¶ Bruce Bradley Sr. appeals his conviction for aggravated assault under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-7-3(2) (Rev. 2006). He claims that the circuit judge improperly denied his request for a mental evaluation to determine whether he was fit to stand trial. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS
2. ¶ Bradley attended the 2009 Roast Boast, a local music and food festival held at the Lowndes County Fairgrounds. Drew Toler was also at the festival with a group of his coworkers and customers. Near the end of the evening, Toler and a couple of his friends went over to the stage to listen to the band.
3. ¶ Toler testified that Bradley spun him around and accused Toler of stealing a beer from Bradley's cooler. Toler claims that he cooly responded that he had not stolen the beer. Then, Bradley punched Toler in the face while holding a beer can in his punching hand. Karen Smith and Keegan Hayes, two of Toler's friends, corroborated Toler's version of the incident.
4. ¶ Bradley testified that Toler did indeed take a beer from Bradley's cooler and left an empty can sitting on top of the cooler. When Bradley returned the empty can and asked Toler for his beer back, Toler attempted to stuff the empty can in Bradley's shirt pocket. Bradley admitted that he punched Toler, but he insisted that there was no beer can in his hand when he hit Toler.
5. ¶ Dr. James Monroe, an emergency-room physician, testified that he examined Toler later that evening. Toler's eye was severely swollen and bleeding. After conducting a CAT scan, he determined that several bones around Toler's eye were fractured. He referred Toler to a specialist, and Toler had surgery to repair those fractures.
6. ¶ Bradley was charged with aggravated assault. His attorney filed a petition to determine Bradley's mental competency claiming that he had reasonable cause to believe that Bradley might be so mentally incompetent as to be unable to understand the proceedings against him or to properly assist in his defense.
7. ¶ Bradley's mother, Janice Gore, testified that Bradley lives in a shed next to his grandmother's house. Bradley had been living with his girlfriend until about a week before trial when he moved back into the shed. She said that dealing with him was like dealing with a child. Gore testified that she took care of Bradley's cooking, cleaning, and other household chores. But she said that he could perform such tasks if he had a space to do so.
8. ¶ Bradley presented evidence that he is disabled due to mild mental retardation, obesity, sleep apnea, and hypertension. In a letter written by his attorney, R. Gawyn Mitchell, during Bradley's proceedings to receive disability benefits, it was noted that Dr. James R. Lane determined Bradley had a full scale IQ of 58, a verbal IQ of 63, and a performance IQ of 58. Dr. Lane found that Bradley was not able to maintain concentration or attention. The letter states that Bradley received social promotions until the eleventh grade. Bradley had a history as a truck driver, but he was fired from most of his jobs because he could not stay awake.
9. ¶ Wyatt Mills, the probation officer who conducted Bradley's pre-sentence report, also testified. Mills said that Bradley was able to communicate with him effectively. Bradley was able to understand and answer the questions posed by Mills. The pre-sentence report showed that Bradley had a driver's license and that he had no history of alcohol or drug abuse.
10. ¶ Upon hearing this evidence, the circuit judge concluded that there was no indication that Bradley suffered from a mental defect that would cause him to be unable to understand that nature and consequences of the trial. Nor was there anything to indicated that he would not be able to assist in his defense.
11. ¶ Bradley proceeded to trial, and the jury found him guilty of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with ten years to serve and ten years suspended. Bradley was further sentenced to five years of post-release supervision.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
12. ¶ In Emanuel v. State, 412 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Miss. 1982), the Mississippi Supreme Court held:
When the trial court has made a finding that the evidence does not show a probability that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense, we will not overturn that finding unless we can say, from the evidence, that the finding was manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The evidence must show more than a possibility that defendant is incompetent to stand trial — the evidence must go further until it appears to the trial court that there is a probability that defendant is incapable of making a rational defense. In this initial inquiry, the trial judge must weigh the evidence and be the trier of the facts.
ANALYSIS
13. ¶ Bradley contends that the trial court improperly denied him the opportunity to have a mental evaluation done by a competent psychiatrist to determine his competency to stand trial.
14. ¶ Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court 9.06 requires the trial court to conduct a mental examination of a defendant if there is a "reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial." Cox v. State, 793 So. 2d 591, 597 (?23) (Miss. 2001). In Cox, the supreme court held: "The determination of what is `reasonable' rests largely within the discretion of the trial judge because the trial judge sees the evidence first hand and observes the demeanor and behavior of the defendant." Id. In Lokos v. Capps, 625 F.2d 1258, 1261 (5th Cir. 1980), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit adopted a test to determine when a competency procedure is required. The test looks to "the existence of a history of irrational behavior, defendant's demeanor at trial, and a prior medical opinion." Id.
15. ¶ Bradley presented no evidence of any past irrational behavior. Only one medical opinion was presented, and no copies of the tests were provided to the trial court. But the trial judge observed his demeanor and behavior first hand.
16. ¶ Bradley concedes that what constitutes reasonable grounds is largely in the discretion of the trial judge. However, he asserts that the trial judge acted unreasonably. Bradley argues that the trial judge received objective information that should have raised doubt regarding whether he was competent to stand trial. Furthermore, he argues that the information the trial judge received should have created a possibility in the mind of the judge that Bradley could neither understand the proceedings, appreciate the significance, nor aid his attorney in his defense. See Conner v. State, 632 So. 2d 1239, 1248 (Miss. 1993), overruled on other grounds by Weatherspoon v. State, 732 So. 2d 158 (Miss. 1999).
17. ¶ In Conner, the supreme court had for its review evidence that Ronnie Lee Conner was taking medication for schizophrenia, had previously made a suicide gesture, "heard voices," and had a low average intellectual level. Id. His defense counsel said that he was unable to get assistance from Conner for the trial, and Conner recalled virtually no facts about the case. Id. However, in Conner, the supreme court concluded that the trial court did objectively consider all the facts and circumstances relevant to Conner's competence to stand trial. Id. The supreme court found nothing in the record to conclude that Conner "could neither understand the proceedings or appreciate their significance, nor rationally aid his attorney in his defense." Id.
18. ¶ Bradley presented less evidence to the trial court than the defendant in Conner. Bradley provided only a letter from an attorney, which referenced a previous mental evaluation done by a physician. The trial judge read the letter but was not presented with the tests used or with any evidence from the physician. While the trial judge read the letter, heard testimony from Bradley's mother that Bradley was childlike, and heard testimony from defense counsel that he had difficulties communicating with Bradley, the judge still found that none of this prevented Bradley from understanding the nature and consequences of his actions or the court proceedings.
19. ¶ The trial judge was also presented with evidence that Bradley was competent to stand trial. Bradley has an active driver's license, which he has had for some time; completed the 11th grade; owns a car; and has held jobs as a truck driver and unskilled laborer. Bradley's mother also testified that if Bradley had a place to cook his meals for himself and wash his clothes, that he would be capable of doing so. A probation officer with the MDOC testified that he experienced no difficulty in communicating with Bradley.
20. ¶ Defense counsel asserts that Bradley's own behavior at trial is evidence enough that he did not understand the severity of the proceedings of his case. Bradley referred to the incident at issue as, "just a fight," and he did not provide his defense counsel with the names of any witnesses who he claimed could testify on his behalf. However, simply because Bradley attempted to downplay the severity of his actions does not prove that he did not understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings. There is no evidence other than Bradley's assertions that there were other witnesses who could corroborate his testimony.
21. ¶ Bradley's choice not to call other witnesses does not signify his inability to appreciate the gravity of his case or to understand the proceedings. In Evans v. State, 725 So. 2d 613, 644 (?207) (Miss. 1997), the supreme court found that the defendant's refusal to accept his attorneys' advice did not equal mental incompetency. The supreme court also noted that mental illness does not automatically mean that one is irrational and incompetent to stand trial. Id. The defendant in Evans had been treated for various mental illnesses throughout his lifetime, and seven of his attorneys as well as multiple physicians testified to the defendant's rage and refusal to communicate facts of the case to his attorney. The supreme court found, however, that the trial court's decision that the defendant was competent to stand trial was not manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Id.
22. ¶ We find that the trial court's determination that Bradley was competent to stand trial is not manifestly against the overwhelming weight of evidence. Thus, Bradley's assignment of error is without merit.
23. ¶ THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY OF CONVICTION OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH TEN YEARS TO SERVE, TEN YEARS SUSPENDED, AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LOWNDES COUNTY. LEE, C.J., IRVING, P.J., MYERS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR. CARLTON, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY RUSSELL, J.
24. ¶ I respectfully dissent. I submit this case should be remanded for the trial court to order a competency examination for the appellant, Bruce Bradley Sr.
25. ¶ Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court 9.06 requires a trial court "shall" order a psychiatric evaluation if the court has reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. Additionally, Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-13-11 (Rev. 2007) provides the circuit court may order a mental examination by a competent psychiatrist or psychologist when "the mental condition of a person indicted for a felony is in question." Due process requires no less.
Pursuant to Rule 9.06: "If before or during trial the court, of its own motion or upon motion of an attorney, has reasonable ground to believe the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, the court shall order the defendant to submit to a mental examination by some competent psychiatrist selected by the court in accordance with [section] 99-13-11."
Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-13-11 provides: "In any criminal action in the circuit court in which the mental condition of a person indicted for a felony is in question, the court or judge in vacation on motion duly made by the defendant, the district attorney or on the motion of the court or judge, may order such person to submit to a mental examination by a competent psychiatrist or psychologist selected by the court to determine his ability to make a defense; provided, however, any cost or expense in connection with such mental examination shall be paid by the county in which such criminal action is pending."
26. ¶ Once the trial court receives evidence from any source raising a reasonable doubt as to competency, then the court is clearly required to order a competency hearing. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 403 (1960). Such doubt will not be dispelled by conflicting evidence. Moore v. United States, 464 F.2d 663, 666 (9th Cir. 1972). In the case of Howard v. State, 697 So. 2d 415, 421 (Miss. 1997), the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed the trial court's responsibility to determine competency when reasonable grounds exist, and the supreme court set forth five aspects of competency for the trial court to consider. The test for competency to stand trial mandates a defendant be one:
(1) who is able to perceive and understand the nature of the proceedings; (2) who is able to rationally communicate with his attorney about the case; (3) who is able to recall relevant facts; (4) who is able to testify in his own defense if appropriate; and (5) whose ability to satisfy the foregoing criteria is commensurate with the severity and complexity of the case.
Id. (quoting Conner v. State, 632 So. 2d 1239, 1248 (Miss. 1993) (overruled on other grounds)).
27. ¶ Regarding the determination of competency, in Smith v. State, 831 So. 2d 590, 593 (¶ 11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002), this Court embraced the objective test used by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to determine what constitutes reasonable grounds. In Lokos v. Capps, 625 F. 2d 1258, 1261 (5th Cir. 1980), the Fifth Circuit suggested the following test for reviewing a decision to forego a competency hearing:
[D]id the trial judge receive information which, objectively considered, should reasonably have raised a doubt about the defendant's competence and alerted him to the possibility that the defendant could neither understand the proceedings, appreciate their significance, nor rationally aid his attorney in his defense?
28. ¶ In this case, the record reflects that on August 23, 2010, the day of trial, Bradley's counsel filed a petition to determine Bradley's mental competency, alleging that Bradley was mentally retarded. In the petition, Bradley's counsel stated he possessed reasonable cause to question Bradley's competency to stand trial. Bradley's counsel submitted a letter from R. Gawyn Mitchell, a disability appeals lawyer, which contained a summary of Bradley's disability record reflecting that Bradley displayed mild retardation with a full scale IQ of 58, and he suffered from sleep apnea, obesity, and hypertension. The letter reflected Bradley possessed second-grade level arithmetic skills.
The record also shows that on the morning of trial, the senior judge in that district asked the trial judge to handle this case.
29. ¶ Janice Gore, Bradley's mother, testified before the trial judge that Bradley depended upon her for shelter, food, and medical support. Gore testified as to Bradley's childlike mind, and she stated her belief that Bradley was incapable of working with an attorney to defend himself. Gore explained that Bradley lacked the ability to distinguish when people are telling the truth or doing things that are not in his best interest. She testified that she talked to Bradley about the upcoming trial, but Gore explained that she does not think Bradley understood the severity of the trial and potential jail sentence. The trial court also heard testimony from Wyatt Mills, Bradley's prior probation officer, who prepared a pre-sentence investigation report. After hearing testimony from the witnesses, the trial court found Bradley competent to stand trial, and the court proceeded with the trial without granting the mental examination by a psychiatrist or psychologist.
30. ¶ After applying the tests set forth in Howard and Smith to the facts before us, I respectfully submit that the record reflects that the evidence presented to the trial judge objectively raises a reasonable question as to Bradley's competency to stand trial. The trial judge possesses a sua sponte duty to order the mental examination to determine competency by a qualified psychiatrist upon presentation of reasonable grounds. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.