Lynch v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-DR-01085-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-DR-01085-SCT ; 2004-DR-01085-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-15-2007 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Section 99-39-21 - Aggravating factors - Cruel and unusual punishment - Photographs - Mental retardation Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves and Dickinson, JJ Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Randolph, J., Joined by Carlson, J., and Smith, C.J., In Part. Non Participating Judge(s): Cobb, P.J. Concurs in Result Only: Diaz, J. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DEATH PENALTY - POST CONVICTION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-05-1998 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Kenneth Thomas Disposition: Leroy Lynch was charged with capital murder for his role in the 1995 robbery and killing of Richard Lee. Lynch was convicted following a jury trial and he was sentenced to death by lethal injection. This Court affirmed the convictions and sentence in Lynch v. State, 877 So. 2d 1254 (Miss. 2004). He now seeks leave to file a motion for post-conviction relief in the trial court. Case Number: 8338 |
|
| Note: | Motion for Leave to File a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in the trial court is granted in part and denied in part. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Leroy Lynch |
MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF CAPITAL POSTCONVICTION COUNSEL |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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 relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Section 99-39-21 - Aggravating factors - Cruel and unusual punishment - Photographs - Mental retardation |
| Summary of the Facts: | Leroy Lynch was convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to death by lethal injection. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. He now seeks leave to file a motion for post-conviction relief in the trial court. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel The State argues that Lynch’s claim of ineffective assistance should be procedurally barred pursuant to sections99-39-21(1) and 99-39-21(3). The State misreads the statute it cites, as this procedural bar applies when a defendant fails to raise issues which were ripe for presentation to the court on direct appeal. That was not the case for Lynch, who was represented by the same counsel during trial and direct appeal. Where the defendant is represented by the same counsel at trial and on appeal, ineffective assistance claims have been asserted via proper post-conviction proceedings, even though the point was not preserved at trial and was not raised on direct appeal. Lynch argues that trial counsel committed professional error in failing to file pre-trial motions until shortly before trial. Counsel’s untimely disclosure of some mitigation witnesses led to their exclusion from the sentencing phase of the trial. Even the trial court characterized this omission as ineffective assistance of counsel. This certainly counts as professional error for purposes of making out a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel’s failure to pursue Lynch’s mental retardation claim and to offer sufficient mitigating evidence, at a minimum, entitles Lynch to a hearing before the trial court on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. Issue 2: Aggravating factors Lynch argues that his death sentence must be vacated because the aggravating circumstances which charged capital murder were not included in the indictment. This issue could have been raised on direct appeal. In addition, a defendant is not entitled to formal notice of the aggravating circumstances to be employed by the prosecution, and an indictment for capital murder puts a defendant on sufficient notice that the statutory aggravating factors will be used against him. Issue 3: Cruel and unusual punishment Lynch argues that he has suffered cruel and unusual punishment simply by being placed on death row and that execution eleven years after the offense will serve no purpose. A claim based on the Eighth Amendment could have been raised on direct appeal. In addition, the Court has considered and rejected this argument in prior cases. Issue 4: Photographs Lynch argues that he was denied his right to a fundamentally fair trial because photographs of the deceased were admitted into evidence during the sentencing phase of his trial. The issue was capable of being raised on direct appeal and is now procedurally barred from collateral review. Issue 5: Mental retardation Lynch argues that he is mentally retarded within the meaning of the United States Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) and thereby entitled to present evidence of such at a hearing before the trial court. In Mississippi, no defendant may be adjudged mentally retarded for purposes of the Eighth Amendment, unless such defendant produces, at a minimum, an expert who expresses an opinion, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that the defendant is mentally retarded, as that term is defined by the American Association on Mental Retardation and/or The American Psychiatric Association and the defendant has completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-II (MMPI-II) and/or other similar tests, and the defendant is not malingering. It is acceptable to utilize the MMPI-II and/or other similar tests. The MMPI-II is not a required test, and decisions that state otherwise are expressly overruled. This matter is remanded to the trial court, where it may employ any one of numerous acceptable tests, for an Atkins hearing. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
