Shaw v. State
| Decision Date | 15 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 47586,47586 |
| Citation | 686 S.W.2d 513 |
| Parties | Bobbie Lewis SHAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Michael Wade Clark, Union, for appellant.
John Munson Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Movant, Bobbie Lewis Shaw, appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. His sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Shaw, 636 S.W.2d 667 (Mo.banc 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 928, 103 S.Ct. 239, 74 L.Ed.2d 188 (1982). In this proceeding movant raises two points of error: (1) failure of the trial court to order a psychiatric examination on the issue of movant's lack of mental capacity for purposes of the Rule 27.26 proceeding; and (2) the finding against the movant on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
Movant's first point is essentially that he was entitled to a determination of his mental competence for the purpose of ascertaining whether he was fit to proceed with his Rule 27.26 motion and whether he can be legally executed pursuant to the death sentence that he received. We first consider whether movant was entitled to a determination of his fitness for purposes of proceeding with his post-conviction motion.
Movant relies on § 552.020(1), RSMo (Supp.1984), which provides: "No person who as a result of mental disease or defect lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense shall be tried, convicted or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as the incapacity endures." (Emphasis added.) This language has been interpreted to mean the procedures of § 552.020 may be invoked "any time before sentencing." State v. Stock, 463 S.W.2d 889, 894 (Mo.1971). "Since § 552.020 is concerned with pretrial or presentence proceedings to determine an accused's fitness to proceed, it does not apply to post-trial procedures." (Emphasis added.) Brown v. State, 485 S.W.2d 424, 428 (Mo.1972). We can find no case applying § 552.020 to Rule 27.26 proceedings.
In Brown, the Rule 27.26 motion alleged error in the denial by the trial court of a motion made at the Rule 27.26 hearing for a psychiatric evaluation under § 552.020. The movant was attempting to gain a § 552.020 examination regarding his capacity at the earlier trial and not for purposes of the 27.26 hearing. However, the court made clear § 552.020 "does not apply to post-trial procedures." Brown, 485 S.W.2d at 428. Later Missouri decisions have affirmed the rule that "[a] motion for an order for mental examination may be made at any time before sentencing ...." State v. Rider, 664 S.W.2d 617, 620 (Mo.App.1984). See also State v. Wagner, 587 S.W.2d 299 (Mo.App.1979). But see Miller v. State, 498 S.W.2d 79, 87 (Mo.App.1973), and Duisen v. State, 652 S.W.2d 162, 163 (Mo.App.1983), where the trial court ordered an examination to determine the movant's capacity to proceed. We do not find it clearly erroneous for the trial court to decline to determine competency in a Rule 27.26 proceeding, since such a proceeding is designed to remedy constitutional and statutory violations at trial rather than matters which may arise after trial. State v. Montague, 510 S.W.2d 776, 778 (Mo.App.1974). In this case the mental condition of movant was evaluated prior to his trial for capital murder. He was found to be fit to proceed. Although defense counsel raised the issue of diminished mental capacity at trial and on direct appeal, the finding of fitness to proceed was never contested.
This Rule 27.26 motion is a collateral attack directed at vacating, setting aside or correcting the sentence. Rule 27.26(a). Movant's present mental condition is irrelevant. In addition to finding § 552.020 does not give movant a right to a mental examination for purposes of the Rule 27.26 proceeding, we are also unable to find any constitutional basis for such a right.
We therefore hold that the trial court's failure to determine movant's mental status for purposes of the Rule 27.26 proceeding is not clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j).
We now turn to the issue of movant's mental status as it relates to the State's ability to execute him. It is clear that movant cannot be executed if he does not at the time for execution meet the standard of competence set forth in § 552.060. That section provides the vehicle in which to raise the issue prior to an impending execution. 1 The purpose of a Rule 27.26 motion, on the other hand, is to provide a remedy to prisoners who claim a "sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution and laws of this state or the United States," or other reasons as stated in Rule 27.26. The rule addresses the validity of the imposition of a sentence and says nothing about a prisoner's mental capacity in serving that sentence. It is not clearly erroneous for the trial court to decline to allow a competency hearing under § 552.060 in this Rule 27.26 proceeding. Rule 27.26(j). Defendant's first point is denied.
Movant next contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney overlooked the discovery report of a witness and failed to object to his testimony at trial as hearsay. He concedes that counsel conducted a thorough and competent cross-examination of the witness. The testimony in question was summarized in State v. Shaw, 636 S.W.2d at 669-670:
Inmate Byron Berry testified that earlier in the morning, as he was walking back to his job in the main kitchen after applying for a job on the loading dock behind the vegetable room, he saw appellant (Shaw) and another inmate standing alone outside one of the buildings. As he passed within two or three feet of them, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McMillin
...to Chapter 552. A Chapter 552 psychiatric evaluation, however, cannot be ordered after the defendant is sentenced. Shaw v. State, 686 S.W.2d 513, 514 (Mo.App.1985); Brown v. State, 485 S.W.2d 424, 428 (Mo.1972), rev'd on other grounds, Schellert v. State, 569 S.W.2d 735, 740 (Mo. banc Attem......
-
State v. Tokar
...competency evaluation cannot be ordered after the defendant is sentenced. State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d at 90; Shaw v. State, 686 S.W.2d 513, 515 (Mo.App.1985). Section 552.020 procedures are "designed to remedy constitutional and statutory violations at trial ... [and] it is the effect of ......
-
Shaw v. Delo
...928, 103 S.Ct. 239, 74 L.Ed.2d 188 (1982). Later, Shaw unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief in state court. Shaw v. State, 686 S.W.2d 513, 514 (Mo.Ct.App.1985). Shaw filed his first federal habeas petition in 1985. The district court denied Shaw's first petition in 1988 and we affirm......
-
Sidebottom v. State
...this aggravating circumstance, counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to make a nonmeritorious objection. Shaw v. State, 686 S.W.2d 513, 516 (Mo.App.1985). Movant also claims that the aggravating circumstance of "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman," § 565.032.2(7), ......