Bennett v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-DR-01516-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2006-DR-01516-SCT
Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-28-2008
Opinion Author: DICKINSON, J.
Holding: PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SEEK POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
Additional Case Information: Topic: Death penalty post-conviction - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Guilty plea - Cross-examination - Death by lethal injection - Disproportionate sentence
Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER AND DIAZ, P.JJ., CARLSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): SMITH, C.J.
Dissenting Author : EASLEY, J., without separate written opinion.
Concurs in Result Only: GRAVES, J.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DEATH PENALTY - POST CONVICTION
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-28-2003
Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: William E. Chapman, III
Disposition: The matter before us is Devin A. Bennett’s petition for post-conviction relief from a capital-murder conviction and death sentence.
District Attorney: David Byrd Clark
Case Number: 12699
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: DEVIN A. BENNETT




 MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF CAPITAL POSTCONVICTION RELIEF BY: GLENN S. SWARTZFAGER, LOUWLYNN V. WILLIAMS, THOMAS C. LEVIDIOTIS



  
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief
    		•
    Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: PAT McNAMARA, MARVIN L. WHITE, JR.  
    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 post-conviction - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Guilty plea - Cross-examination - Death by lethal injection - Disproportionate sentence
    Summary of the Facts: Devin Bennett was convicted of capital murder and the underlying crime of felonious child abuse. He was sentenced to death. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Bennett now seeks post-conviction relief.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Bennett argues his counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase of the trial. An attorney representing a defendant in a death-penalty case has a duty to focus on both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial. Bennett’s mother states by affidavit that – although she traveled to Mississippi prior to the trial to meet Bennett’s attorney – he asked her no questions during their meeting and failed to call her to testify during the sentencing phase of the trial. Bennett’s attorney, on the other hand, claims she “was not available to interview.” This is one of the factual disputes that must be resolved by the trial court. Several witnesses would have attested to Bennett’s traumatic childhood, mood disorders, and substance-abuse history. The trial court must determine at the hearing that such testimony would have been relevant to a jury’s consideration of whether to impose a sentence of life in prison or death. The record in this case discloses no evidence of premeditation. Nor is there evidence that Bennett abused his son in any way prior to the incident which led to his death. This, combined with the evidence presented of Bennett’s history of a traumatic childhood, mental disorders, and substance abuse, presents a substantial showing that Bennett is entitled to a hearing on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel that may have occurred during the penalty phase of his trial. Issue 2: Guilty plea Bennett argues that the trial court erred in refusing to accept his guilty plea. Bennett previously raised this issue on direct appeal. Thus, the matter is now procedurally barred from collateral review under the doctrine of res judicata. Issue 3: Cross-examination Bennett’s argument regarding the trial court’s failure to limit the scope of cross-examination was capable of disposition on direct appeal and is now procedurally barred. Issue 4: Death by lethal injection Bennett argues that death by lethal injection violates his First- and Eighth- Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. Bennett’s Eighth Amendment challenge to the lethal injection protocol in Mississippi is without merit. Mississippi’s lethal injection protocol appears to be substantially similar to Kentucky’s protocol that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Issue 5: Disproportionate sentence Bennett argues that his death sentence is disproportionate to the crime charged when considering petitioner’s relative mental state and culpability. This issue was considered on direct appeal and found to be without merit.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court