Chapman v. State

• Decision Date: 09 August 2018
• Docket Number: NO. 2016-CA-01655-SCT,2016-CA-01655-SCT
• Citation: 250 So.3d 429
• Parties: Richard CHAPMAN v. STATE of Mississippi
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

250 So.3d 429

Richard CHAPMAN

v.STATE of Mississippi

NO. 2016-CA-01655-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

August 9, 2018

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF, GEORGE T. HOLMES, Jackson

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE, Jackson

EN BANC.

BEAM, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. This appeal arises from the Hinds County Circuit Court's order granting in part Richard Chapman's motion for post-conviction relief (PCR), following this Court's mandate in Chapman v. State , 167 So.3d 1170 (Miss. 2015) ( Chapman IV ). There, in a five-to-four decision, a majority of this Court found that no direct appeal was taken from Chapman's 1982 conviction for rape and life sentence, and ordered the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if the record and transcript from the jury trial still existed, and if not, whether something equivalent could be reconstructed. Id. at 1175. After parties reconstructed much of the record on remand, the trial court granted Chapman leave to file an out-of-time appeal from his 1982 rape conviction and life sentence.¹

¶ 2. Chapman appeals from that ruling, claiming the record is less than adequate to allow an acceptable appeal to be prepared. Chapman maintains his trial counsel was constitutionally deficient for failing to file an appeal, or even a notice of appeal, even though Chapman claims he paid counsel to do so. Chapman also claims a life sentence imposed on a sixteen-year-old for a crime that was not a homicide constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Chapman submits his 1982 rape conviction should be reversed and this cause dismissed or, in the alternative, remanded for a new trial.

¶ 3. The State contends Chapman's out-of-time appeal is devoid of reversible error and argues Chapman's rape conviction and life sentence imposed by the jury should be affirmed.

¶ 4. Having reviewed the reconstructed record, we find that Chapman is not entitled to an out-of-time appeal. As will be explained, we confirm what Justice Coleman surmised in his dissent in Chapman IV was likely the case: (1) Chapman's trial record was not destroyed, as Chapman has claimed throughout his multiple PCR petitions; and (2) Chapman had three years from April 17, 1984, when Mississippi's Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act (UPCCRA) went into effect, to petition for an out-of-time appeal but failed to do so. See Chapman IV , 167 So.3d at 1177-80 (Coleman, J., dissenting); see also former Mississippi Code Section 99-39-5(1)(h), providing grounds for relief to "[a]ny prisoner in custody under sentence of a court of record of the state of Mississippi who claims: ... he is entitled to an out of time appeal."²

¶ 5. The reconstructed record plainly shows that Chapman was aware as late as August 1983 that a direct appeal had not been filed after his 1982 rape conviction.

And even though the UPCCRA had not yet been enacted, Chapman had a judicial remedy available to him, as set forth by this Court in 1977, upon which Chapman also failed to act. See Jones v. State , 346 So.2d 376 (Miss. 1977) ( Jones I ) and Jones v. State , 355 So.2d 89 (Miss. 1978) ( Jones II ).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 6. Chapman was indicted by a Hinds County grand jury on August 10, 1981, for rape and armed robbery. The rape charge was tried before a Hinds County jury in January 1982. Chapman was represented at trial by Hermel Johnson. Former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Reuben Anderson, then serving as a Hinds County circuit judge, presided over Chapman's trial. No direct appeal was taken afterward.

¶ 7. In September 1982, Chapman pleaded guilty to robbery (without a firearm), after having been charged with robbing the rape victim with a firearm. Chapman was sentenced to ten years in the custody of Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), with six years suspended, four years to serve, and five years on supervised probation.

¶ 8. The reconstructed record shows that, in August 1983, former Hinds County Circuit Judge William Coleman sent Chapman the following letter:

Dear Mr. Chapman:

The index card in the Court Administrator's office shows that you were convicted of rape and received a life sentence on January 27, 1982 and that you entered a plea of guilty on September 22, 1982 to robbery without a firearm and received a ten year sentence, six years suspended on five year supervised probation and four years to serve.

After your letter was received by Judge [Reuben] Anderson, the Court Administrator checked with Mr. Johnson, your attorney, and he advised that it was part of the plea bargaining agreement on the robbery charge that you would not appeal the rape charge. I have no way of knowing if this is correct or not.

This Court has lost jurisdiction and, if it is your intention to appeal, you must file the proper papers with the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Sincerely yours,

William F. Coleman

Circuit Judge

¶ 9. In April 1985, Judge Coleman entered an order allowing the following evidence used in Chapman's 1982 rape trial to be turned over or destroyed: saliva sample, blood sample, rape pack, two pairs of underwear, one blue shirt, one pair of grey pants, and one "checked sheet."

¶ 10. In 2005, the Innocence Project filed a motion in Hinds County Circuit Court on Chapman's behalf for "Preservation and Production of Evidence." Former Hinds County Circuit Judge Swan Yerger ordered the University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC), the Mississippi State Crime Laboratory, the Jackson Police Department (JPD), the Hinds County Sheriff's Office, the Hinds County District Attorney's Office, the Mississippi Crime Laboratory, and the Hinds County Circuit Clerk's Office to search for biological evidence relating to Chapman's 1982 rape prosecution. The trial court also directed each entity to provide the status and disposition of any biological evidence and to preserve such evidence until further notice.

¶ 11. The Hinds County District Attorney's Office responded to the circuit court's order that all evidence from Chapman's rape case had been destroyed pursuant to an April 1985 court order.

Chapman v. State , 47 So.3d 203, 205 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) ( Chapman I ).

¶ 12. In 2006, Chapman filed a pro se PCR motion alleging: (1) innocence regarding the rape conviction; (2) the trial court's failure to abide by Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court Practice 8.04 in accepting Chapman's guilty plea for robbery; (3) the State's failure to preserve exculpatory evidence and the trial transcript; and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. Chapman filed an amended motion, alleging also: (1) his indictments in both the rape and robbery cases were defective; (2) the jury in his rape trial was not drawn from a fair cross-section of the community; and (3) he is serving an illegal sentence. Id. at 205-06. The trial court dismissed Chapman's PCR motion, finding the motion was time-barred under the three-year statute of limitation provided by Mississippi Code Section 99-39-5(2), and that Chapman was not entitled to relief. Id. at 206.

¶ 13. Chapman I affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding Chapman had failed to comply with Mississippi Code Section 99-39-9(1)(d), which requires a sworn statement of specific facts within the prisoner's personal knowledge, and a sworn statement of specific facts not within the prisoner's knowledge stating how or by whom said facts will be proven. Id. Chapman also failed to comply with Mississippi Code Section 99-39-9(1)(e), which requires witness affidavits from all who will testify and copies of documents or records that will be offered. Chapman I noted, however, this requirement may be excused upon a showing of good cause. Id.

¶ 14. Addressing the trial court's finding that Chapman's PCR action was time-barred, Chapman I pointed out that the Legislature recently had enacted Mississippi Code Section 99-39-5(2)(a)(ii), which lifts the time bar if biological evidence exists that would demonstrate, through additional DNA testing, a reasonable probability the petitioner would not have been convicted or would have received a lesser sentence if favorable results had been obtained through such DNA testing at the time of prosecution. Id. at 208-09 (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (2)(a)(ii) (Rev. 2015) ). But Chapman failed to show that previously tested or untested biological evidence exists, and Chapman failed to meet his burden of proving newly discovered evidence. Id. at 209.

¶ 15. Lastly, Chapman I explained that the Legislature recently had enacted a procedure for preserving and destroying DNA evidence, and requiring the State to retain enough biological evidence to develop a DNA profile, and detailing under what circumstances biological evidence may be destroyed. Id. at 209 (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 99-49-1(3)(d), (f)-(h) (Rev. 2015) ). The law, however, was not in effect when the evidence used in Chapman's prosecution was ordered destroyed by the circuit court in 1985. Id.

¶ 16. Further, Chapman I found that Chapman failed to make an adequate showing or assertion that the State had acted in bad faith in destroying the evidence. Id. (citing Cox v. State , 849 So.2d 1257, 1266 (Miss. 2003) (setting forth a three-part test to prove a spoliation claim, including consideration whether the government acted in bad faith in failing to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence) ). Id.³

¶ 17. In 2011, Chapman filed another PCR motion in the trial court asserting the same claims presented in his 2006 PCR motion. The trial court found the motion time-barred and dismissed it. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding it "time barred and successive-writ barred." Chapman v. State , 135 So.3d 184 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013), reh'g denied (Apr. 1, 2014), cert. dismissed , 145 So.3d 674 (Miss. 2014) ( Chapman II ).

¶ 18. In 2012, while Chapman II was pending in the Court of Appeals, Chapman filed a third PCR motion in the trial court, asserting: (1)...