Powers v. State

• Decision Date: 21 June 2022
• Docket Number: 2017-DR-00696-SCT
• Parties: STEPHEN ELLIOT POWERS Petitioner v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

STEPHEN ELLIOT POWERS Petitioner
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent

No. 2017-DR-00696-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 21, 2022

Serial: 242359

CORRECTED EN BANC ORDER

JOSIAH DENNIS COLEMAN, JUSTICE

Before the en banc Court are (1) Stephen Elliot Powers's Motion to Hold Post-Conviction Proceedings in Abeyance Because of Petitioner's Incompetency and (2) his Motion to Amend Petitioner's Motion to Hold in Abeyance Because of Petitioner's Incompetency. The State's responses in opposition to both motions are also before us.

On January 4, 2022, Powers filed his First Successor Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. In the abeyance motion, he asks this Court "to hold his post-conviction proceedings in abeyance because of his lack of competency-including his lack of a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings as well as his inability to communicate rationally with counsel about his case."

We are persuaded by the State's argument that Powers has no right to competency in post-conviction proceedings. See Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57, 64-65, 133 S.Ct. 696, 702-03, 184 L.Ed.2d 528 (2013) (stating that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not imply a right to competence and holding that death-row inmates seeking federal habeas relief have no statutory right to stay proceedings when found incompetent). To be sure, Neal v. State, 687 So.2d 1180, 1183 (Miss. 1996) (citing Rumbaugh v. Procunier, 753 F.2d 395 (5th Cir. 1985)), said that defendants "must be competent at all stages of the criminal process," including post-conviction proceedings. But Rumbaugh

1

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. Here, Powers argues that his input is critical because his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are "intensely fact-bound" and trial counsel is deceased. But he also says his "health and cognitive impairments have no chance to be rehabilitated." And in federal habeas proceedings, "[w]here there is no reasonable hope of competence, a stay is inappropriate and merely frustrates the State's attempts to defend its presumptively valid judgment." Id. at 77.

After due consideration, we find that the abeyance motion should be denied.

In his motion to amend, Powers seeks not only to amend his abeyance motion, but also asks the Court "to stay his execution because of his mental health deficits and other combined psychological shortfalls which have diminished his rational understanding of the punishment imposed on him." And he requests a hearing to determine if he satisfies Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986); Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 127 S.Ct. 2842, 168 L.Ed.2d (2007); and Madison v. Alabama, 139 S.Ct. 718, 203 L.Ed.2d 103 (2019).

After due consideration, we find that Powers's request to stay his execution is premature and that the motion to amend should be denied without prejudice to his right to seek a stay of execution at the proper time.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Powers's Motion to Hold Post-Conviction Proceedings in Abeyance Because of Petitioner's Incompetency is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that his Motion to Amend Petitioner's Motion to Hold in Abeyance Because of Petitioner's Incompetency is denied without prejudice to

2

his right to seek a stay of execution at the proper time.

SO ORDERED.

AGREE: RANDOLPH, C.J., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN AND GRIFFIS, JJ.

DISAGREE: KITCHENS AND KING, PJJ., AND ISHEE, J.

3

KITCHENS, PRESIDING JUSTICE, OBJECTING TO THE ORDER WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT:

¶1. The majority is "persuaded by the State's argument that [Stephen Elliot] Powers has no right to competency in post-conviction proceedings." I am unpersuaded. In prior cases, this Court has recognized a right to mental competency during post-conviction proceedings and remanded such cases for a hearing to determine a post-conviction petitioner's mental competency to proceed. Dickerson v. State, 291 So.3d 344, 347 (Miss. 2020); En Banc Order, Goff v. State, No. 2009-DR-01394-SCT (Miss. Dec. 15, 2011); En Banc Order, Walker v. State, No. 2005-DR-00788-SCT (Miss. Mar. 9, 2006). Indeed, this Court has preserved the right for more than two decades. Neal v. State, 687 So.2d 1180, 1183 (Miss. 1996)....