Dickerson v. State
| Decision Date | 05 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2018-CA-00710-SCT,2018-CA-00710-SCT |
| Citation | 291 So.3d 344 |
| Parties | David DICKERSON v. STATE of Mississippi |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL BY: ALEXANDER KASSOFF, HUMPHREYS McGEE, OXFORD, SCOTT A. JOHNSON
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BRAD A. SMITH, JASON L. DAVIS, JACKSON ASHLEY LAUREN SULSER
EN BANC.
CHAMBERLIN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. A jury convicted David Dickerson of capital murder, arson and armed robbery and sentenced him to death for capital murder. He was sentenced to twenty years for arson and forty years for armed robbery, to run consecutively. Dickerson appealed his convictions and sentences, and the Court affirmed. Dickerson v. State , 175 So. 3d 8, 12 (Miss. 2015). Dickerson then instituted post-conviction collateral relief proceedings. Dickerson claims he is incompetent to proceed with the post-conviction proceedings; so the Court remanded the case and ordered the trial court to determine whether Dickerson was competent to proceed in post-conviction proceedings. The trial court found Dickerson competent. Dickerson now appeals that finding.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. A grand jury indicted Dickerson for capital murder, arson and armed robbery. Dickerson moved for a determination of his competency to stand trial. The court appointed Dr. Criss Lott to evaluate Dickerson. Dr. Lott determined that further observation was needed to determine the nature and severity of Dickerson's mental illness and to rule out the possibility of malingering. Accordingly, Dickerson was sent to be evaluated by Dr. Robert Storer and Dr. Reb McMichael at the State Hospital at Whitfield for two months. The trial court then held a competency hearing at which all three doctors testified that Dickerson was competent to stand trial according to the standard articulated in Dusky v. United States , 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S. Ct. 788, 4 L. Ed. 2d 824 (1960).1 Dickerson offered no witnesses or evidence of his own at the hearing. The trial court found that Dickerson was competent to stand trial according to the Dusky standard and then held the trial in July 2012. The jury found Dickerson guilty on all three charges and recommended the death penalty. Dickerson appealed to this Court. On appeal, "Dickerson raise[d] ten assignments of error[,]" including that "the trial court erred in finding [him] competent to stand trial." Dickerson , 175 So. 3d at 14. The Court held that the trial court's finding that "Dickerson was competent to stand trial was ... not manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence." Id. at 17. The Court ultimately affirmed Dickerson's conviction and death sentence. Id. at 35.
¶3. After his direct appeal, Dickerson filed for post-conviction relief and moved to stay the post-conviction proceedings, claiming that he was not competent to proceed. The Court granted his motion and remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of Dickerson's competency to proceed before the Court in post-conviction relief proceedings.
¶4. The trial court held a competency hearing in February 2018 at which Dr. Storer and Dr. Malcolm Spica both testified that they had examined Dickerson to evaluate his competency, and the doctors were both accepted as experts at the hearing. Dr. Storer testified that Dickerson was competent to proceed because Dickerson possessed a factual and rational understanding of post-conviction proceedings and had the ability to consult with his attorneys. Dr. Spica also testified that Dickerson had the ability to communicate with his attorneys, but Dr. Spica's report supported Dickerson's contention that he did not have a rational or factual understanding of post-conviction proceedings. After hearing the doctors' testimonies and reviewing both of the doctors' written reports, the trial court found Dickerson competent to proceed. Dickerson now appeals the trial court's decision.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5. A trial court's findings regarding competency will not be overturned unless the trial court's decision was "manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence." Beasley v. State , 136 So. 3d 393, 398 (Miss. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Martin v. State , 871 So. 2d 693, 698 (Miss. 2004) ).
DISCUSSION
¶6. Dickerson raises two assignments of error in this appeal. First, he claims that the trial court's determination that he was competent to proceed in post-conviction relief proceedings was manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Second, Dickerson claims that the trial court erred by failing to accede to Dickerson's assertion that the standard set forth in Dusky and Gammage v. State , 510 So. 2d 802 (Miss. 1987),2 is the only standard for evaluating a petitioner's competency to proceed in post-conviction proceedings in a Mississippi court and by failing to apply the Dusky / Gammage standard to determine Dickerson's competency to proceed.3
¶7. Dickerson raises two main issues in his argument that the trial court's determination of his competency was manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. First, Dickerson argues that the trial court's reliance on Dr. Storer's report is misplaced. Second, Dickerson claims that the trial court erred by failing to admit Dr. Spica's report into evidence and that Dr. Spica's report should have been relied upon by the trial court.
¶8. Dickerson asserts the trial court should not have relied on Dr. Storer's report and testimony because Dr. Storer, in reaching his conclusion, (1) erred by finding that Dickerson did not have a severe and persistent mental illness; (2) incorrectly relied on his belief that marked cognitive deficits in executive functioning are not accepted as mental defects that significantly interfere with competency-related abilities; (3) lacked an understanding of post-conviction relief proceedings, including what level of assistance an attorney requires of a petitioner during the proceedings; and (4) failed to administer any standard test for evaluating competency.
¶9. Dickerson argues that schizophrenia
is a severe and persistent mental illness and that Dr. Storer's diagnosis that Dickerson did not have schizophrenia based on the lack of symptoms Dickerson displayed was erroneous. The State argues that Dickerson failed to cite any relevant authority to support this contention. "Failure to cite relevant authority obviates the appellate court's obligation to review such issues." Arrington v. State , 267 So. 3d 753, 756 (Miss. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Byrom v. State , 863 So. 2d 836, 853 (Miss. 2018) ).
¶10. Regardless of Dickerson's failure to cite authority to support his contention, this Court has held that a person suffering from schizophrenia
may still be competent to stand trial as well as competent to be executed. Hearn v. State , 3 So. 3d 722, 736, 736 n.19 (Miss. 2008) (citing Indiana v. Edwards , 554 U.S. 164, 128 S. Ct. 2379, 171 L. Ed. 2d 345 (2008) ); Billiot v. State , 655 So. 2d 1, 17 (Miss. 1995).
¶11. Dickerson argues that Dr. Storer erred by determining that Dickerson did not suffer from schizophrenia
because Dickerson had been previously diagnosed with the illness in 1997 by another doctor. Dr. Storer explained that he disagreed with the previous diagnosis because Dickerson's symptoms at the time Dr. Storer evaluated him were not consistent with schizophrenia. Dickerson argues that his symptoms of schizophrenia were merely in remission when Dr. Storer observed him for this competency hearing. He further argues that according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), a psychologist seeing a patient during remission might fail to detect symptoms of the illness. Dr. Storer, however, testified at the hearing that the DSM-5 states that "[n]egative symptoms are more closely related to prognosis than are positive symptoms and tend to be the most persistent." Accordingly, Dr. Storer testified that the signs of the remaining, underlying negative symptoms would be fairly obvious to a trained psychologist. In his report, Dr. Storer noted that Dickerson's emotional functioning was good and that his eye contract was also appropriate. Based on Dickerson's failure to display any signs of underlying negative symptoms associated with schizophrenia, Dr. Storer concluded that Dickerson did not have schizophrenia.
¶12. Regardless of the procedural bar to this claim for failure to cite relevant authority, we find that Dr. Storer's conclusion that Dickerson did not suffer from a severe and persistent mental illness was reasonably based on the DSM-5. Therefore the trial court's finding that Dickerson did not suffer from a severe and persistent mental illness was not manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence
in Executive Functioning Related to Competency
¶13. Dickerson argues that Dr. Storer incorrectly stated that cognitive deficits in executive functioning are irrelevant and not accepted as mental defects that significantly interfere with competency-related abilities. The State argues that Dickerson's claim is barred because he failed to cite relevant legal authority to support it, because he failed to object to Dr. Storer's being allowed to testify as an expert in the fields of clinical and forensic psychology and because the doctrine of res judicata bars his contention that his cognitive deficits in executive functioning render him incompetent.
¶14. Notwithstanding the procedural bars, Dr. Storer was accepted as an expert in the fields of clinical and forensic psychology and actually refused to testify to what Dickerson claims. At the competency hearing, Dr. Storer refused to testify that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powers v. State
... ... proceedings. But Rumbaugh ... concerned competency to waive the right to collateral review ... of a conviction and sentence, not whether there is a ... constitutional or statutory right to competency during ... post-conviction proceedings. 753 F.2d at 398; Dickerson ... v. State, 291 So.3d 344, 354-55 (Miss. 2020) (Coleman, ... J., specially concurring) ... Even ... though we are persuaded by the State's argument, we still ... reserve discretionary authority to grant a stay. See ... Ryan, 568 U.S. at 74 ... ...
-
Colenberg v. State
...finder of fact, is entitled to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to afford their testimony." Dickerson v. State, 291 So.3d 344, 353 (¶36) (Miss. 2020); accord Shelby v. State, 311 So.3d 613, 622 (¶39) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020), cert. denied, 310 So.3d 830 (Miss. 2021). T......
- Wolfe v. Delta Disc. Drugs, Inc.
-
Shelby v. State
...with any finder of fact, is entitled to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to afford their testimony." Dickerson v. State , 291 So. 3d 344, 353 (¶36) (Miss. 2020). ¶40. Under the Uniform Post-Conviction and Collateral Relief Act (UPCCRA), a PCR motion generally must b......