Wilson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-DR-01565-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-01-2012 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Granted in part, denied in part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Duty of court to investigate - Prosecutorial vindictiveness - Waiver of jury trial Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DEATH PENALTY - POST CONVICTION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-30-2007 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: Appellant pleaded guilty to capital murder and to child-abuse and sentenced to death. District Attorney: John R. Young Case Number: CR05-635 |
|
| Note: | Motion for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court with a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is granted in part and denied in part. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | William Matthew Wilson a/k/a Willie |
OFFICE OF CAPITAL POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL: AMY STRICKLAND, GLENN S. SWARTZFAGER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA LOUISE COLONIAS, 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 - Duty of court to investigate - Prosecutorial vindictiveness - Waiver of jury trial |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Wilson pled guilty to capital murder and to a separate child-abuse count. He was sentenced to death for capital murder and to twenty years for felonious child abuse. His death sentence was affirmed on appeal. Wilson has now filed a motion seeking post-conviction collateral relief. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Wilson argues that his trial counsel did not properly communicate with him, did not properly investigate the case, and did not prepare for the penalty phase. As a result, Wilson asserts that he lost the benefit of the plea agreement that he had reached with the State. Counsel must conduct an adequate investigation in order to be able to present that mitigating evidence to the jury. Wilson has included several exhibits with his post-conviction-relief motion which support his claim that counsel did not adequately communicate with him. During a hearing conducted on November 4, 2010, the trial judge considered Wilson’s post-conviction motion for discovery which included a request to depose the trial judge regarding whether he ever saw Wilson’s letters expressing dissatisfaction with his attorneys. The trial judge denied the motion, but stated for the record that he saw the letters and that it was the judge who had forwarded the letters to the clerk’s office for filing in the court file. Wilson also includes his affidavit stating that he wrote many letters to his attorney and that his attorney stated that he was hiring a private investigator but never did. Both Wilson’s attorneys have signed affidavits in support of Wilson’s post-conviction motion. A thorough review of the direct-appeal record and the exhibits offered by Wilson in support of his post conviction-relief motion appear to show that the attorneys did not consult with Wilson regarding important decisions and did not keep Wilson informed of important developments. The circuit court refused to accept Wilson’s guilty plea, because Wilson had expressed his dissatisfaction with his attorneys and their failure to communicate with him. The State immediately withdrew its sentencing offer of life without parole. The record and exhibits appear to show that counsel’s failure to communicate with the client affected the outcome of the plea process. Thus, Wilson is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in the circuit court. Wilson argues that counsel did not investigate his case properly and did not properly prepare for the penalty phase. A thorough review of the direct-appeal record and the exhibits offered by Wilson in support of his post-conviction motion appear to show that his attorney’s conducted virtually no investigation to obtain mitigation evidence. A defendant facing the death penalty has the right to provide the jury with mitigating evidence. If counsel made no reasonable efforts to communicate with Wilson and investigate, then counsel had no hope of knowing what his defenses might be or what his mitigation evidence might be. This also warrants an evidentiary hearing. Issue 2: Duty of court Wilson argues that the trial court had a duty to investigate his counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness; that the trial court failed to inquire into Wilson’s complaints about his attorneys; and that such failure violated his constitutional rights. The record and pleadings appear to show that counsel did not communicate with Wilson and did not adequately investigate his case. However, since this matter is being remanded to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing regarding Wilson’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, this issue is now moot. Issue 3: Prosecutorial vindictiveness Wilson argues that the prosecution’s withdrawal of the sentencing recommendation of life without parole was the result of prosecutorial vindictiveness which violated his constitutional rights. Wilson argues that the only reason the prosecution withdrew the agreement was to punish him for exercising his right to the effective assistance of counsel. Wilson argues that the only remedy for such prosecutorial vindictiveness is to vacate his death sentence and resentence him to life without parole. Wilson has failed to demonstrate prosecutorial vindictiveness. Issue 4: Waiver of jury trial Wilson argues that his waiver of a jury during his sentencing trial was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. Wilson contends that his attorneys “assured him that he would not be sentenced to death if he waived a sentencing jury.” Even if Wilson’s attorneys incorrectly told him that Judge Gardner could not legally sentence him to death, during the plea colloquy, Judge Gardner informed Wilson several times that he could sentence him to death. This argument is without merit. Wilson also states that neither attorney informed him that Judge Gardner had sentenced two other defendants to death after they had waived sentencing juries. Wilson is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this issue. The circuit court should determine if that court’s sentencing record in this type of proceeding was relevant and revealed likely consequences of the proceeding. Additionally, the circuit court must determine if Wilson’s waiver was procedurally flawed and, therefore, invalid. Wilson is also entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding this issue. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
