Reid v. State, Case No. CCA No. M2006-01294-CCA-R3-PD (Tenn. 6/26/2006)
| Decision Date | 26 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CCA No. M2006-01294-CCA-R3-PD. |
| Parties | PAUL DENNIS REID, JR., by and through Linda Martiniano, Petitioner, STATE OF TENNESSEE, Respondent. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Montgomery County Circuit Court; Trial Court No. 38887.
Nicholas D. Hare, Assistant Post-Conviction Defender, Nashville, Tennessee.
MOTION FOR REVIEW OF DENIAL OF MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING TRAP 3 APPEAL OF RIGHT OF DISMISSAL OF POST-CONVICTION PETITION
Pursuant to the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court, Rule 28, Section 10(C), Linda Martiniano, as next friend for Paul Dennis Reid, Jr., respectfully moves this Court to 1) review the June 23, 2006, Order (Attachment 1) of the Court of Criminal Appeals denying a stay of execution pending a T.R.A.P. 3 appeal of right from the Montgomery County Circuit Court's June 21, 2006, Order (Attachment 2) denying a stay of execution; 2) set aside the Order denying a stay of execution; and 3) enter an Order granting a stay of execution pending the appeal of right from the Circuit Court's June 13, 2006 Order (Attachment 3), dismissing this post-conviction petition. An expedited hearing on this matter is requested.
1.This matter comes before this Court upon a timely motion for review of the June 23, 2006 Order of the Court of Criminal Appeals denying a stay of execution pending an appeal of right upon dismissal of this post-conviction petition filed by Linda Martiniano, next friend, on behalf of her brother, the petitioner. The court below abused its discretion in failing to grant the stay, which should have been entered as a matter of course since the law clearly authorizes an appeal of right in this matter.1
2. The State concedes that the appeal of the dismissal of the next friend petition "should be docketed like any other case and proceed in accordance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure." See "Response of the State of Tennessee In Opposition to Appellant's Motion for a Stay of Execution and For Expedited Hearing" at p. 6 (Attachment 4). The appeal would be moot if Mr. Reid is executed before he can effectuate an appeal, in violation of his rights to due process, access to the courts, equal protection, and protection from cruel and unusual treatment under the state and federal constitutions.2
3.The procedural posture of this case is unprecedented and involves serious issues of first impression. This case is not one involving last minute litigation at the end of the three-tier process. Mr. Reid was at the initiation stage of the second tier on May 23, 2006 when his next friend filed a post-conviction petition on his behalf. The State is attempting to circumvent, and moot, the normal course of appeal through the state portion of the second tier by executing Mr. Reid before he can complete an appeal to which the State admits he is entitled.
4.Undersigned counsel first raised objections to executing Mr. Reid in this matter while the Davidson County competency case, Case No. M2005-00260-SC-S09-PC, was pending in this Court through a Motion for Stay of Execution, for the execution set on October 5, 2006, filed nearly a month before, on September 9, 2005. The State contested the motion, arguing that this Court did not have jurisdiction to enter a stay and that the Montgomery County Circuit Court was the only court with jurisdiction. Further the State urged the Court to wait until the U.S. Supreme Court's expected October 3, 2005, ruling on a pending motion to proceed without affidavit of indigency on a petition for writ of certiorari on this Court's direct appeal opinion. The State asserted this time frame provided this Court with" ample opportunity" to "determine whether to reset Reid's execution" which was scheduled less than 48 hours from that time. This Court entered an Order on September 26, 2005, resetting Mr. Reid's execution for June 28, 2006.
5. Counsel also filed, as Mr. Reid's de facto guardian, a post-conviction petition on his behalf on September 23, 2005 which resulted in a State Rule 10 appeal which this Court heard on February 2, 2006.3 This Court's ground-breaking opinion in Holton v. State and Reid v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___, Tenn. Sup. Ct. No. M2005-01870-SC-S10-PD and No. M2005-02398-SC-S10-PR (May 4, 2006) was issued on May 4, 2006 and became final on June 22, 2006 upon denial of the petition to rehear.4
6. This Court has jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion for a stay of execution. Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court, Rule 28, Section 10(C). This Court should grant review and issue an Order staying the execution, currently set for June 28, 2006, pending a T.R.A.P. 3 appeal of right of the Montgomery Circuit Court's June 13, 2006 Order dismissing this post-conviction petition.5
7.With only days left before Mr. Reid's execution there is insufficient time for adequate and reflective briefing and review of the serious issues of first impression raised in this matter, which involve the appropriate standards for permitting a next friend to initiate post-conviction for a death sentenced inmate whom the State and Montgomery Circuit Court agree suffers from a serious mental disease or defect.
8.The Circuit Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals erroneously found that those courts had no authority to grant a stay of execution set by this Court following denial of a direct appeal. If the law does not provide those courts with the authority to grant a stay, because the rules and other procedures already in place for post-conviction petitioners do not apply to proceedings by next friend, Mr. Reid's rights to due process, access to the courts, equal protection, and protection from cruel and unusual treatment under the state and federal constitutions are violated.
9. A death-sentenced person who is incompetent to proceed in a post-conviction proceeding can be represented in such proceeding by a "next friend."6 See Holton/Reid, supra. The State concedes that Mr. Reid has a mental illness that results in persistent delusions about government controlling his life and the legal process.7 Without conducting a hearing, but looking only to the proferred evidence, the Montgomery County Circuit Court acknowledged that Dr. Woods, a neuropsychiatrist who has diagnosed Mr. Reid with a severe neurological disorder, is highly credentialed. The court did not dispute either Dr. Woods' diagnosis or the details of Mr. Reid's current delusions.
10. Dr. Woods tendered an affidavit regarding Mr. Reid's current mental state, which is a product of left temporal lobe dysfunction, a neurological disorder which has produced in Mr. Reid a chronic, schizophrenia-like psychosis which has severely impaired his ability to weigh, deliberate, inform and cooperate. Dr. Woods opined that Mr. Reid is presently incompetent, either under Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966) or State v. Nix, 40 S.W.3d 459 (Tenn. 2001).8
11.Nevertheless, the lower court dismissed the next friend's post-conviction petition, finding an insufficient prima facie case of present incompetency was demonstrated under the competency standard set forth in State v. Nix, 40 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tenn. 2001). This is the wrong competency standard as it does not address the issues of competency required by Rees and its progeny, and, if even the correct standard, the next friend established a prima facie case.
1. This matter arises from the diligent, timely efforts of the next friend and undersigned counsel to alert the courts to serious questions regarding Mr. Reid's present incompetency. This Court affirmed Mr. Reid's convictions and death sentences in this case on May 24, 2005. State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286 (Tenn. 2005). On June 27, 2005, this Court granted an interlocutory appeal, which is currently pending, to decide issues related to Reid's competency in his Davidson County post-conviction case.9 With an October 5, 2005 execution date impending and no guidance as to how to proceed to protect their client's legal rights, on September 23, 2005 undersigned counsel filed a post-conviction petition on Mr. Reid's behalf in the Circuit Court for the 19th Judicial District, Montgomery County, Tennessee, Division III, raising concerns about Mr. Reid's incompetency.
2. This Court on May 4, 2006 vacated Orders appointing counsel and staying execution entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court on September 29, 2005 pursuant to the motions and petition filed by counsel. As an issue of first impression, this Court found that a "next friend" may file a post-conviction petition on behalf of a prisoner who is believed to be presently incompetent. Holton v. State and Reid v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___, Tenn. Sup. Ct. No. M2005-01870-SC-S10-PD and No. M2005-02398-SC-S10-PR (May 4, 2006)
3. The next friend, Linda Martiniano, filed a timely post-conviction petition (CCA App. Att. 2) on behalf of her brother on May 23, 2006.10 The next friend moved for appointment of counsel and a stay of execution. (CCA App. Att. 5) The Montgomery Circuit Court, by Order entered June 13, 2006, dismissed the post-conviction petition, and denied the motions for appointment and stay of execution. In that Order, the Circuit Court found that Ms. Martiniano qualifies to serve as a next friend for her brother, Mr. Reid, as she meets the requirements of Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162 (1990) and Holton v. State and Reid v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___, Tenn. Sup. Ct. No. M2005-01870-SC-S10-PD and No. M2005-02398-SC-S10-PR (May 4, 2006). See Attachment 3, Order of June 13, 2006, p. 5.
4. The Circuit Court recognized, in the June 13, 2006 Order, that Dr. Woods, a neuropsychiatrist who has diagnosed Mr. Reid with a severe neurological disorder, has "impressive credentials." See Attachment 3 at p. 15. Further, the Circuit Court ...
To continue reading
Request your trial