Brown v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-01246-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01246-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-22-2012
Opinion Author: Waller, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Denial of discovery - M.R.A.P. 22(c)(4)(ii) - Section 99-39-15 - Good cause - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar and Pierce, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Dickinson, P.J.
Dissent Joined By : Chandler, J.
Dissenting Author : Kitchens, J.
Dissent Joined By : King, J. Dickinson, P.J., Joins In Part.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: PCR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-20-2009
Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court
Judge: Isadore Patrick
Disposition: Denied petition for PCR.
Case Number: 04-KV-0020-P

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Joseph Patrick Brown




JAMES W. CRAIG



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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: Post-conviction relief - Denial of discovery - M.R.A.P. 22(c)(4)(ii) - Section 99-39-15 - Good cause - Ineffective assistance of counsel

    Summary of the Facts: In 1994, Joseph Brown was convicted of capital murder during the commission of an armed robbery. Brown was sentenced to death by lethal injection. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Brown filed an application for post-conviction relief, which was granted, in part, for the sole purpose of determining whether Brown’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek an independent psychological evaluation of Brown for use as mitigation evidence. A special judge, appointed to hear the matter, denied Brown’s petition for post-conviction relief, and Brown appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of discovery Brown argues that he was denied discovery under M.R.A.P. 22(c)(4)(ii). This rule says that, upon appointment of counsel to represent the petitioner, or upon the petitioner retaining private counsel, the petitioner’s trial and appellate counsel shall make available their complete files relating to the conviction and sentence. It also requires the State to make available “the complete files of all law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies involved in the investigation of the crimes committed and the prosecution of the petitioner.” Section (c)(4)(ii) of Rule 22 is intended to allow a petitioner to gather information to support an application to the Supreme Court for leave to file a motion for post-conviction relief in the trial court. If the Court grants such an application and directs its filing in the trial court, the proceedings are then governed by sections 99-39-13 through 99-39-23. And under section 99-39-15, a petitioner is allowed discovery “available under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure or elsewhere in the usages and principles of law if, and to the extent that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so, but not otherwise.” After remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing, Brown could seek discovery pursuant to only section 99-39-15. The post-conviction hearing was limited to the sole purpose of examining whether Brown’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek an independent mental evaluation. In his motion to the trial court, filed five days before the hearing, Brown stated that, without discovery, he “[could not] be adequately prepared for the evidentiary hearing required by the Supreme Court.” Brown did not say why he could not prepare adequately without the requested discovery, nor did he address why access to his medical records, access to the doctors who evaluated him, and access to his trial counsel were not sufficient to prepare him for a hearing on whether his counsel was ineffective for failing to seek an independent medical evaluation. As such, Brown did not show “good cause” for why his discovery request should be granted. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Consideration of relevant mitigating evidence is generally required at the sentencing phase because the imposition of the death sentence should reflect a reasoned, moral response to the defendant's background and character and the crime. It is critical that mitigating evidence be presented at capital sentencing proceedings. In the trial court and now on appeal, Brown has focused his ineffectiveness argument almost exclusively on trial counsel’s decision to forego presenting an expert report on Brown’s psychological evaluation and testimony from the State Hospital doctors. He claims that his counsel was deficient by preventing this evidence from being presented as mitigation, and that he was prejudiced by such deficiency. It is clear from the record that Brown’s attorneys, after discussing Brown’s psychological evaluation with the State doctors, decided not to have the doctors produce a report after determining that such report would be more harmful than helpful. Brown has not shown just what mitigation evidence might have been developed through the production of a psychological report, nor has he shown what would have been garnered from an additional psychological evaluation. Brown has offered neither evidence nor testimony from other experts as to any failings or omissions by the doctors retained by Brown’s trial attorneys. The record does not reflect that the decision of Brown’s attorneys constitutes a professional error. Their decision was calculated to best serve Brown’s interests at trial.


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