Crawford v. State
| Decision Date | 04 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2013–DR–02147–SCT.,2013–DR–02147–SCT. |
| Citation | 218 So.3d 1142 |
| Parties | Charles Ray CRAWFORD a/k/a Crawford, Chuck v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Mississippi Office of Capital Post–Conviction Counsel by Louwlynn Vanzetta Williams, Alexander D. Kassoff, attorney for appellant.
Charles Ray Crawford, appellant, pro se.
Office of the Attorney General by Marvin L. White, Jr., attorney for appellee.
EN BANC.
¶ 1. This matter comes before the Court on Charles Ray Crawford's Application for Leave to File Successive Petition for Post–Conviction Relief attacking his conviction for capital murder and death sentence. Also before the Court are the Response filed by the State of Mississippi and Crawford's pro se Application for Leave to File Successive Petition for Post–Conviction Relief. After review, we deny both Crawford's application for leave to proceed and his pro se application for leave.
¶ 2. Crawford's main issue in this successive petition for post-conviction relief focuses on Crawford's first post-conviction relief (PCR) counsel's failure to obtain expert assistance and subject Crawford to further mental evaluations.
¶ 3. Charles Crawford was out on bond and awaiting trial on charges based on events alleged to have occurred in January 1991. These charges were unrelated to the instant capital-murder charge. Crawford had filed a notice of intent to plead an insanity defense for both charges. In December 1992, Crawford was subjected to a psychiatric examination at the Mississippi State Hospital by Dr. Criss Lott, a clinical psychologist, and Dr. Reb McMichael, a psychiatrist and director of the Forensic Sciences Unit. Both doctors concluded that Crawford had no memory deficits, that he was in fact malingering (i.e., faking) his memory deficits, that he could distinguish right from wrong, and that he was competent to stand trial.
¶ 4. In January 1993, four days before his trial for the unrelated charges of aggravated assault and rape was set to begin, Crawford broke into the home of Kristy Ray, kidnapped her, left a ransom note, and took her to a secluded barn in the woods. Crawford then raped and killed her. After the police arrested Crawford, he admitted to murdering Kristy, and he escorted law enforcement to the location of Kristy's body. The next day, Crawford gave a more detailed account of the kidnapping and murder to the FBI. Crawford stated he was worried about his upcoming rape and aggravated-assault trial, and he had wanted to be alone. So he went out to the barn known as Hopper Barn, armed with a shotgun, knife, and revolver. He had been stockpiling food and drink for nearly a month.
¶ 5. He claimed to have had two blackouts, one immediately before abducting Kristy, and one before her death. Crawford described everything he claims he could remember and that after he awoke from the second blackout, Kristy was dead at his feet. Crawford said he must have killed Kristy, but he could not remember doing so. He told the investigators that he sometimes had blackouts and could not control himself.
¶ 6. At least five experts had evaluated Crawford before trial. Crawford presented the insanity defense through the testimony of several family members and Dr. Stanley Russell, a psychiatrist with the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Crawford v. State, 716 So.2d 1028, 1036 (Miss.1998) ( Crawford I ), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31, 39 (Miss.2003). Dr. Russell had treated Crawford while at Parchman. Id. For a period of ten months before trial, Dr. Russell had seen Crawford three times a week. Dr. Russell testified that, in his opinion, at the time the subject crime was committed, Crawford was insane under M'Naghten1 :
Crawford suffered from depression and periods of time lapse about which he has no memory. Russel[l] diagnosed Crawford as a psychogenic amnesiac. Russel[l] referred to the prior medical history of Crawford, including medication prescribed by a psychiatrist when Crawford was ten, his hospitalization in East Mississippi State Hospital in 1989, his hospitalization at a psychiatric facility in Memphis in 1991 and two forensic evaluations at Whitfield. Crawford had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder (manic depressive illness ) in 1989, and he had been prescribed lithium, which seemed to calm the moods of manic people. Russel[l] also testified regarding Crawford's anger and resentment as a child and his antisocial behavior as a teenager. Russel[l] ultimately testified that in his opinion Crawford satisfied "the M'Naghten test for not being criminally responsible for his actions as a result of mental disorder that affected his reasoning to the point that he was not aware of the nature and consequence of his behavior."
¶ 7. Dr. Russell stated that he had consulted at least two other experts who agreed with his conclusions that Crawford had suffered from psychogenic amnesia. These experts included Dr. Don Guild with the Forensic Unit at the State Hospital, and Dr. Daphne Simion, Director of the Dissociative Disorders Program at Queens Hospital in New York, New York. Two expert witnesses also testified for the defense at the sentencing phase—Dr. Russell again and Dr. Mark Webb, a psychiatrist in private practice hired by Crawford's family. Id. at 1052. Dr. Webb had testified about Crawford's history of head injuries at the sentencing phase. Dr. Webb testified that he believed Crawford suffered from bipolar disorder and lacked criminal responsibility at the time of the trial. Crawford v. Epps, 2012 WL 3777024 (N.D.Miss. Aug. 29, 2012). Dr. Lemly Hutt, also hired by Crawford's family, had evaluated Crawford. But the defense did not call him as a witness.2
¶ 8. Rebuttal testimony was presented by Drs. Lott and McMichael. These experts indicated that Crawford suffered from no major mental illness and they found that Crawford had malingered his memory problems. By the time of the capital murder trial, Drs. Lott and McMichael had evaluated Crawford on four separate occasions related to the rape, assault, and capital-murder charges.
¶ 9. A jury in the Circuit Court of Tippah County convicted Crawford for capital murder (a killing during the commission of a kidnapping), rape, sexual battery, and burglary. Crawford I, 716 So.2d at 1028. The jury sentenced him to death for the capital-murder conviction, and this Court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Id. Crawford's motion for rehearing was denied. The United States Supreme Court denied Crawford's petition for certiorari. Crawford v. Mississippi, 525 U.S. 1021, 119 S.Ct. 550, 142 L.Ed.2d 458 (1998). Subsequently, Crawford's motion for rehearing was denied. Crawford v. Mississippi, 525 U.S. 1172, 119 S.Ct. 1100, 143 L.Ed.2d 99 (1999).
¶ 10. Crawford filed his pro se petition for post-conviction relief in this Court. This Court remanded the post-conviction proceedings to the Tippah County Circuit Court for appointment of Crawford's counsel. The circuit court then appointed Thomas C. Levidiotis. Levidiotis filed a petition for post-conviction relief. In order to conduct a thorough investigation into Crawford's claims, Levidiotis also requested that the trial court grant him funding for expert assistance related to mitigation specialist Dr. Gary Mooers to provide, among many services, suggested testing in medical fields based on the mitigation investigation. The circuit court denied his request.
¶ 11. After this denial, Levidiotis filed a petition for interlocutory appeal with this Court to appeal the circuit court's order denying his request for funding for expert assistance. A panel of this Court denied his petition on August 1, 2002, finding that Crawford had failed to show that the appointment of a mitigation investigator was necessary.
¶ 12. After filing the petition on Crawford's behalf, Levidiotis ultimately withdrew from representation after a dispute as to compensation. The circuit court then appointed the Mississippi Office of Capital Post–Conviction Counsel ("MOCPCC") to review the case and file a supplement. William Clayton, a staff attorney in that office, worked on Crawford's petition. At the same time as his petition for post-conviction relief, Crawford filed an application for leave to file a motion to vacate the judgment and death sentence.
¶ 13. This Court denied both the petition for post-conviction relief filed by Levidiotis and the supplement filed by the MOCPCC. Crawford v. State, 867 So.2d 196 (Miss.2003) (Crawford II ). Crawford then exhausted potential federal habeas remedies, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. See Crawford v. Epps, 531 Fed.Appx. 511 (5th Cir.2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 1281, 188 L.Ed.2d 313 (2014). Now, twelve years after his first petition for post-conviction relief was denied by this Court, and in response to the State's motion to set an execution, Crawford seeks leave to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief in the circuit court.
¶ 14. Crawford, through the MOCPCC, raises the following issues: (1) whether Crawford received ineffective assistance of first post-conviction-relief counsel for failing to conduct an adequate investigation into Crawford's claims, (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective in presenting evidence related to Crawford's mental state, so that the jury did not hear about Crawford's untreated epilepsy and brain trauma, (3) whether Crawford's right to counsel was violated in 1993 when his then-attorney assisted law enforcement, agreed to a mental evaluation, and then withdrew from the case, (4) whether Crawford received ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel's failure to suppress evidence used against him in the penalty phase, and (5) whether newly discovered evidence shows that law enforcement ignored Crawford's assertion of his Fifth–Amendment right to counsel.3
¶ 15....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ronk v. State
... ... Simon v. State , 857 So.2d 668, 678 (Miss. 2003) (citing Moore v. Ruth , 556 So.2d 1059, 106162 (Miss. 1990) ). 14. In capital cases, non-procedurally barred claims are reviewed using " heightened scrutiny under which all bona fide doubts are resolved in favor of the accused." Crawford v. State , 218 So.3d 1142, 1150 (Miss. 2016) (quoting Chamberlin v. State , 55 So.3d 1046, 104950 (Miss. 2010) ). "[W]hat may be harmless error in a case with less at stake becomes reversible error when the penalty is death." Crawford , 218 So.3d at 1150 (quoting Chamberlin , 55 So.3d at ... ...
-
Burford v. State
... ... But "counsel may be deemed ineffective where counsel fails to move to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the accused's constitutional rights if the petitioner shows that the motion would have been meritorious and that prejudice resulted from the evidence's admission." Crawford v. State , 218 So. 3d 1142, 1161 (Miss. 2016) (citing Davis v. State , 743 So. 2d 326, 336 (Miss. 1999) ). "The accused has been prejudiced if there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different without the evidence." Pace v. State , 242 So. 3d 107, 120 ... ...
-
Walker v. State
... ... Id. (quoting Loden v. State , 971 So. 2d 548, 572 (Miss. 2007) ). Further, "[i]n capital cases, non-procedurally barred claims are reviewed using "heightened scrutiny" under which all bona fide doubts are resolved in favor of the accused. " Ronk , 267 So. 3d at 1247 (quoting Crawford v. State , 218 So. 3d 1142, 1150 (Miss. 2016) ). 35. At the hearing, Walker sought to show that defense counsel had rendered deficient performance by failing to investigate. He argued that he had been prejudiced because if trial counsel's performance had been constitutionally sufficient, counsel ... ...
-
Wilkerson v. State
... ... This was newly discovered evidence not available at the time of Howard's trial in 2000 ... The present scientific understanding of the invalidity of identification through bite-mark comparison is a new, material fact that constitutes newly discovered evidence under Crawford [ v. State , 867 So. 2d 196, 203-04 (Miss. 2003) ]. Id ... at 1018-19 (25, 30) (citations omitted). The supreme court reversed and rendered the court's denial of Howard's PCR motion, vacated his conviction and sentence, and remanded to the circuit court for a new trial. Id ... at 1020 (36). 24 ... ...
-
HOW EXPERTS HAVE DOMINATED THE NEUROSCIENCE NARRATIVE IN CRIMINAL CASES FOR TWELVE DECADES: A WARNING FOR THE FUTURE.
...1561 (11th Cir. 1987); In re Fields, 800 P.2d 862 (Cal. 1990); Pratt v. Armenakis, 112 P.3d 371 (Or. Ct. App. 2005); Crawford v. State, 218 So. 3d 1142 (Miss. (158.) See generally Mary Rumsey, A Guide to Fee-Baaed U.S. Legal Research Databases. N.Y.U. L. GLOB. BLOC. (Aug. 2005), https://www......