Loden v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-DP-00282-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-DP-00282-SCT2002-DP-00282-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 05-29-2007 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-04-2007 Opinion Author: RANDOLPH, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty - Funds for expert assistance - Sufficiency of indictment - Avoiding arrest aggravating circumstance - Underlying felony aggravating circumstance - Especially heinous aggravating circumstance - Proportionality review - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, DICKINSON AND LAMAR, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Diaz, P.J. Concurs in Result Only: GRAVES, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - DEATH PENALTY - DIRECT APPEAL |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-21-2001 Appealed from: Itawamba County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: The circuit court found all four factors required by Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-19-101(7) (Rev. 2007) were satisfied, that sufficient aggravating circumstances existed, and “that the mitigating circumstances do not outweigh the aggravating circumstances and that the death penalty should be imposed. District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR00-068 |
|
| Consolidated: 2006-CA-00432-SCT Thomas Edwin Loden, Jr. v. State of Mississippi | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Thomas Edwin Loden, Jr. |
Andre de Gruy; David Lee Daniels; Stacy P. Ferraro |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | Marvin L. White, Jr.; Charles W. Maris, Jr.; Jim Hood |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Death penalty - Funds for expert assistance - Sufficiency of indictment - Avoiding arrest aggravating circumstance - Underlying felony aggravating circumstance - Especially heinous aggravating circumstance - Proportionality review - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Thomas Loden, Jr. pled guilty to capital murder, rape, and four counts of sexual battery. He was sentenced to the death penalty. He filed a notice of appeal. Thereafter, the Office of Capital Defense Counsel filed a “Motion to Vacate Guilty Plea” alleging that Loden’s plea was involuntary because his decision to plead guilty was based on inaccurate legal advice given by his trial attorneys. The circuit court dismissed Loden’s motion for post-conviction relief, finding that Loden knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea, and that Loden cognizantly waived his right to appeal. Thereafter, Loden filed notice of appeal on dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Funds for expert assistance Loden filed a motion seeking funds to hire the services of a forensic social worker to aid defense counsel in interviewing and preparing mitigation witnesses and adequately developing the full range of mitigating circumstances that exist in this case. He now argues that the court’s denial of his motion was error. In determining whether a defendant was denied a fair trial because of failure to appoint or allow funds for an expert, some of the factors to consider are whether and to what degree the defendant had access to the State’s experts, whether the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine those experts, and lack of prejudice or incompetence of the State’s experts. An indigent’s right to defense expenses is conditioned upon a showing that such expenses are needed to prepare and present an adequate defense. The circuit court provided Loden with state-funded investigative assistance in developing mitigation evidence. An order authorizing a Criminal Defense Investigator was granted, followed by an order granting additional funds for the CDI. An order providing a psychological evaluation of Loden at the Mississippi State Hospital was granted. Finally, an order making state funds available for Loden’s selected psychologist to examine and evaluate Loden was granted. Loden’s later-filed motion set forth only generic reasons for the need of an additional expert, and Loden conceded that the services of the forensic social worker were indistinguishable from those of the other experts except insofar as he had an alleged undefined special expertise and a Ph.D. Therefore, the court did not err in denying the motion. Issue 2: Sufficiency of indictment Loden argues that the indictment did not include a valid statutory aggravating factor nor a mens rea element of section 99-19-101(5) and (7). An indictment is sufficient without listing aggravating circumstances, as anytime an individual is charged with murder, he is put on notice that the death penalty may result. And, our death penalty statute clearly states the only aggravating circumstances which may be relied upon by the prosecution in seeking the ultimate punishment. Issue 3: Avoiding arrest aggravating circumstance Loden argues that the avoiding arrest aggravating circumstance was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As Loden spurned objection to the submission of this aggravating circumstance at trial, he is procedurally barred from raising it for the first time on appeal. This aggravator is properly submitted to the jury if evidence existed from which the jury could reasonably infer that concealing the killer’s identity, or covering the killer’s tracks to avoid apprehension and arrest, was a substantial reason for the killing. Viewing Loden’s statements and the grave dug in a secluded wooded area on the property of Loden’s grandmother in the light most favorable to finding this aggravating circumstance, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Loden killed the victim in order to avoid apprehension and arrest. Issue 4: Underlying felony aggravating circumstance Loden argues that the use of the underlying felony as an aggravating circumstance does not narrow the class of death-eligible offenders and that treating every felony-murder as an aggravating circumstance cannot be a principled means of distinguishing death-eligible defendants and, therefore, section 99-19-101(5)(d) is unconstitutionally applied. Loden also argues that under the Double Jeopardy clauses of the state and federal constitutions, the aggravating circumstance based on the separately punished offenses must be struck and the death sentence vacated. There is no constitutional error in using the underlying felony as an aggravating circumstance. In addition, Loden was convicted on a capital murder charge with the underlying felony of kidnapping, but no separate charge of kidnapping was in the indictment. As such, no double-jeopardy issues exist. Issue 5: Especially heinous aggravating circumstance Loden argues that the especially heinous aggravator wholly subsumed the underlying offense aggravator based on section 99-19-101(5)(d). Procedurally, this issue is raised for the first time on appeal and is barred. In addition, the fact that aggravating circumstances share relevant evidence does not make them duplicative. The differentiated designation of these aggravating circumstances in section 99-19-101(5)(d) and (5)(h) fundamentally indicates that they are separate and distinct. Issue 6: Proportionality review The circuit court judge found that each of the four factors in section 99-19-101(7) was satisfied, then concluded that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and imposed the death sentence. There is no evidence presented, or argument asserted, that the judge was influenced by passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor in imposing that sentence. Therefore, section 99-19-105(a) was satisfied. Given the evidence presented, a rational trier of fact could have found each of the aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Loden pleaded guilty to brutally raping and sexually battering the victim for nearly four hours, before killing her by way of suffocation and manual strangulation. The death penalty was not a disproportionate or excessive sentence in light of Loden’s barbaric conduct and was not disproportionate or excessive when compared to the sentences in other capital murder cases. Issue 7: Ineffective assistance of counsel Loden argues deficient performance exists in counsel erroneously advising that he could appeal his conviction based on a guilty plea, and prejudice exists in that he would not have pled guilty but for the erroneous advice of counsel. When the trial court questions the defendant and explains his rights and the effects and consequences of the plea on the record, the plea is rendered voluntary despite advice given to the defendant by his attorney. The record clearly shows that the judge expressly informed Loden of the charges against him; the consequences of his guilty plea, including the minimum and maximum penalties in sentencing; and the implications of waiving his right to trial by jury, right to confront adverse witnesses, and right to protection against self-incrimination. Furthermore, Loden affirmatively stated under oath that his guilty pleas were free and voluntary. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
