Chase v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-DR-01335-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-20-2004 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Chase's Successive Application for Leave to File Motion to Vacate Death Sentence, Dismissed. Chase's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, granted. Chase's Motion to Proceed Without Verification, Granted. Chase's Motion to Amend Successive Application for Leave to File Motion to Vacate Death Sentence, Granted. Chase's Successive Application for Leave to File Motion to Vacate Death Sentence, as Amended, Granted. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Substance of application - Verification - Section 99-39-9 - Mental retardation - Atkins procedure Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Graves and Randolph, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Easley, J., Specially Concurs With Separate Written Opinion, Joined by Smith, C.J. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DEATH PENALTY - POSTCONVICTION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-28-1990 Appealed from: Copiah County Circuit Court Judge: Joe N. Pigott Disposition: Convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. District Attorney: Dunn Lampton Case Number: 13941 |
|
| Note: | Chase's Successive Application for Leave to File Motion to Vacate Death Sentence, Dismissed. Chase's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Granted. Chase's Motion to Proceed Without Verification, Granted. Chase's Motion to Amend Successive Application for Leave to File Motion to Vacate Death Sentence, Granted. Chase's Application for Leave to File Motion to Vacate Death Sentence, as Amended, Granted. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ricky Chase |
CYNTHIA STEWART |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: 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 - Substance of application - Verification - Section 99-39-9 - Mental retardation - Atkins procedure |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ricky Chase was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Chase's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Chase has now filed a Successive Application For Leave to File Motion to Vacate Death Sentence and a Motion to Amend his Successive Application. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Substance of application The State alleges that Chase or his lawyer used an Emergency Application filed in January 2003 on behalf of another death row inmate, Ron Foster, and simply substituted Chase's name for Foster's in the text of the Application and that none of the factual information contained in the motion relates to Ricky Chase. Apparently, after studying the State’s allegations, counsel for Chase filed a Motion to Amend Successive Application for Leave to File for Post-Conviction Relief. The Court agrees that the amendment will not prejudice the State and is necessary to correctly state the facts on which Chase relies in his Atkins claim. The State also argues that the successive application fails to comply with section 99-39-11 (3), which provides that the motion shall be verified by the oath of the prisoner. There is no requirement of verification in section 99-39-11(3), but verification of the Motion to Vacate Death Sentence is required by section 99-39-9(3). The verification required by statute was not included, and Chase’s attorney did not sign the Certificate of Service. Absent “substantial compliance” with the requirements of section 99-39-9(4), a prisoner sentenced to death faces possible dismissal of his application and motion. Although this oversight is inexcusable particularly in a death penalty case, there is nothing to be gained in this particular case by returning the Motion and Application for verification. Issue 2: Mental retardation Chase argues that he meets all three of the criteria for mental retardation used in all of the tests cited by the Court in Atkins 536 U.S. 304 (2002). Because Chase has arguably demonstrated that his IQ falls within the range of possible mental retardation, and because he has presented an affidavit which asserts that he suffers from “mild retardation,” he cannot constitutionally be denied the opportunity to present the issue to the trial court. The Atkins majority cited, with approval, two specific, almost identical, definitions of “mental retardation.” The first was provided by the American Association on Mental Retardation and the second was provided by the American Psychiatric Association. These definitions which were adopted in Foster v. State, 848 So. 2d 172 (Miss. 2003), together with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-II (MMPI-II), provide a clear standard to be used in this State by trial courts in determining whether, for Eighth Amendment purposes, a criminal defendant is mentally retarded. 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 MMPI-II and/or other similar tests, and the defendant is not malingering. The expert must be a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist, qualified as an expert in the field of assessing mental retardation, and further qualified as an expert in the administration and interpretation of tests, and in the evaluation of persons, for purposes of determining mental retardation. Upon meeting this initial requirement, the defendant may present such other opinions and evidence as the trial court may allow pursuant to the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. Thereafter, the State may offer evidence, and the matter should proceed as other evidentiary hearings on motions. The factors to be considered by the trial court are the expert opinions offered by the parties, and other evidence if limitations, or lack thereof, in the adaptive skill areas listed in the definitions of mental retardation. The trial court shall place in the record its finding and the factual basis therefor. No defendant may be granted a hearing on the issue of Eighth Amendment protection from execution, due to alleged mental retardation unless, prior to the expiration of the deadline set by the trial court for filing motions, the defendant shall have filed with the trial court a motion, seeking such hearing. The defendant must attach to the motion an affidavit from at least one expert. The trial court shall then provide a reasonable amount of time for testing the defendant for mental retardation. For defendants whose trials were held prior to publication of this opinion, the affidavit as described shall be attached to the defendant’s application for post-conviction relief. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
