Mitchell v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-DR-00479-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2002-DR-00479-SCT ; 2002-DR-00479-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-19-2004
Holding: LEAVE TO SEEK POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Aggravating circumstance - Avoiding arrest - Indictment - Probable cause - Mental retardation - Lesser-included offense - Execution date - Section 99-19-106 - Speedy trial
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DEATH PENALTY - POST CONVICTION

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-24-1998
Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court
Judge: Kosta N. Vlahos
Disposition: Appellant was convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to death.
District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II
Case Number: 9800195

Note: Mitchell's Motion for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court with a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is denied.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: William Gerald Mitchell a/k/a William Jerald Mitchell




OFFICE OF CAPITAL POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL BY: ROBERT RYAN



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JUDY T. MARTIN 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 relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Aggravating circumstance - Avoiding arrest - Indictment - Probable cause - Mental retardation - Lesser-included offense - Execution date - Section 99-19-106 - Speedy trial

Summary of the Facts: William Mitchell was convicted of capital murder committed while being under a sentence of life in prison. He was sentenced to death by lethal injection. The Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and sentence. Mitchell has now filed an application for leave to seek post-conviction relief in the trial court.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Mitchell argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He first argues that trial counsel should have developed and presented evidence of mental retardation during the sentencing phase of the trial. In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court held that execution of a mentally retarded prisoner violates the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment. In the present case, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Mitchell is mentally retarded within the meaning of Atkins. Consequently, trial counsel cannot be faulted for failing to present mitigating evidence which did not exist. Mitchell also argues that trial counsel failed to challenge the factual basis for charging him with "avoiding arrest." The issue is procedurally barred from further consideration on collateral review by the doctrine of res judicata. Mitchell argues that counsel was ineffective due to his failure to actively seek a change of venue. A motion for a change of venue is not automatically granted in a capital case. There must be a satisfactory showing that a defendant cannot receive a fair and impartial trial in the county where the offense is charged. Mitchell has made no such showing. Mitchell argues that counsel failed to secure a speedy trial. Since this Court has already held that Mitchell's defense suffered no prejudice from the delay, it follows that any purported omission by trial counsel in causing the delay could have had absolutely no adverse impact on the outcome of the trial. Mitchell also argues that trial counsel's demand for jury questionnaires was not timely made. The contention that the motion would have been granted if filed earlier is speculative at best since there is no authority requiring jurors to complete such forms. Issue 2: Aggravating circumstance Mitchell argues that there was no evidence to support a finding that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding arrest. It has already been determined on direct appeal that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding arrest. Issue 3: Indictment Mitchell argues that the indictment failed to include the elements of the underlying and aggravating offense (avoiding arrest) which raised the charge to a capital offense. This issue was previously considered and rejected. In addition, a defendant is not entitled to formal notice in the indictment 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 4: Probable cause Mitchell argues that police unlawfully came to the residence of his grandfather without probable cause so as to deprive him of a fair trial and due process. The issue was considered on direct appeal and is now procedurally barred. In addition, once he fled the officers and ignored their commands to halt, the officers, already possessing reasonable suspicion, also obtained probable cause. Issue 5: Mental retardation There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Mitchell is mentally retarded within the meaning of Atkins v. Virginia. In fact, the records show that Mitchell served four years in the military and attended college at Mississippi Valley State University for one semester. It is incumbent upon a petitioner claiming mental retardation to produce an expert opinion that the defendant possessed an IQ of 75 or below and that there is a reasonable basis to believe that further testing would show the defendant to be mentally retarded. No such showing has been made in Mitchell's application for post-conviction relief. Issue 6: Lesser-included offense Mitchell argues that it was error on the part of the trial court not to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. This issue was raised on direct appeal and rejected. In addition, there was no evidence presented at trial Mitchell had displayed heat-of-passion emotions. Issue 7: Execution date Mitchell argues that his death sentence may not be imposed until his finishes serving his prior life sentence. Section 99-19-106 clearly provides that execution shall be set on motion of the State after all state and federal remedies have been exhausted. Issue 8: Speedy trial This issue was raised on direct appeal and rejected.


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