Springs v. Hobbs

• Decision Date: 23 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. 5:13CV00005 JLH,5:13CV00005 JLH
• Parties: THOMAS LEO SPRINGS PETITIONER v. RAY HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

THOMAS LEO SPRINGS PETITIONER v. RAY HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT

No. 5:13CV00005 JLH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION

Dated: June 23, 2014

OPINION AND ORDER

Thomas Leo Springs was convicted of capital murder in the Circuit Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas, and was sentenced to death.¹ The victim was his estranged wife, Christina Springs. Springs' conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and his post-conviction motion for relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 was denied by the circuit court and the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Springs has now filed a 156-page petition in this Court seeking habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Springs' petition is a mixed petition, meaning that some of his claims have been presented to the state courts, while others have not. He argues, in part, that he is actually innocent of capital murder by virtue of his mental condition. Pursuant to the avoidance principle articulated in Dretke v. Haley, 541 U.S. 386, 393-94, 124 S. Ct. 1847, 1852, 158 L. Ed. 2d 659 (2004), the Court directed the parties to identify the claims that are not procedurally defaulted and argue the merits of those claims, and then to identify the claims that are procedurally defaulted but for which there are grounds to excuse the procedural default, arguing those grounds (other than actual innocence), as well as the merits of those claims. See Document #12. The Court has received briefs on these issues and will now address them.

I. FACTS PROVEN AT TRIAL

Thomas and Christina² were together some twenty years. Their relationship produced six children. Thomas is black, whereas Christina was white. Despite its longevity, their relationship was not always peaceful. There was evidence at trial that Thomas had stated on numerous occasions that if Christina ever left him, he would kill her.

Christina left Thomas on December 14, 2004. She and the five younger children stayed for approximately a week in a private residence before moving into a crisis center in their home town, Fort Smith, Arkansas, on December 21. After Thomas began circling the crisis center, Christina and the children were moved to a crisis center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where they stayed until approximately January 18, 2005, when they returned to the crisis center in Fort Smith so Christina could attend a proceeding relating to the divorce from Thomas and the children could return to school.

On the morning of January 21, 2005, Christina was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her sister, Kelly Repking. Kelly's three-year-old daughter, Paige, also was a passenger in the vehicle. The three of them drove to the Sutton School in Fort Smith, where some of the children attended, and spoke with a policeman outside the school building regarding a report concerning Thomas's behavior at that school. While they were at the school speaking to the policeman, Thomas was across the street yelling obscenities at Christina.

When the conversation with the policeman concluded, Kelly, Christina, and Paige left in Kelly's vehicle. The policeman followed them for a time but then turned off. Kelly, Christina, and Paige traveled down Greenwood Avenue to the intersection with Rogers Avenue, which is one ofthe busiest intersections in Fort Smith. At approximately 9:00 a.m., they stopped at the traffic light at the intersection of Greenwood and Rogers. While they were waiting for the light to turn, Thomas arrived at the same intersection, traveling on Rogers Avenue. After looking both ways, Thomas made a right-hand turn from a left lane from Rogers onto Greenwood and deliberately rammed his vehicle head-on into the vehicle that contained Christina, Kelly, and Paige. He then exited the vehicle, smashed in the passenger-side window next to Christina, and repeatedly bashed her face into the dashboard. After bashing Christina's head against the dashboard several times, Thomas returned to his vehicle and retrieved a knife, which he used to stab Christina numerous times. Christina died as a result of the injuries suffered during this attack. The autopsy report concludes as follows:

This 41-year-old white female, Christina Springs, died of multiple stab and cutting wounds of the back (9), right side of the chest (4), left side of the chest (2), right lower extremity (3), left lower extremity (1), left upper extremity (4), and right upper extremity (1). Investigation of the circumstances of death revealed that the decedent was reportedly stabbed in her vehicle. She was transported to a local hospital where she was pronounced dead.

Autopsy demonstrating multiple stab and cutting wounds involving the torso and extremities. These wounds involved vital organ and blood vessels which resulted in internal bleeding. Multiple defense type wounds were present on the upper and lower extremities. Blunt force trauma consisted of facial contusions and superficial lacerations.

Not only had Thomas threatened to kill Christina should she ever leave him, he also had repeated that threat to several persons after she left him. One witness testified that on the morning before the murder Thomas stated that he intended to kill Christina.

It was undisputed at trial that Thomas killed Christina in the manner described above. At the guilt phase, the defense primarily was that Thomas did not act with premeditation and deliberation, as required for a conviction for capital murder. The trial court instructed the jury oncapital murder and on the lesser offenses of first- and second-degree murder. The trial court declined a request by the defense to instruct on manslaughter. The jury found Thomas guilty of capital murder.

At the penalty phase, the jury unanimously found as aggravating circumstances that Thomas previously committed another felony an element of which was the use or the threat of violence to another person or the creation of a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person;³ that in the commission of the capital murder Thomas knowingly created a great risk of death to a person other than the victim; and that the capital murder was committed in an especially cruel or depraved manner. As mitigating circumstances, one or more jurors found that the capital murder was committed while Thomas was under extreme mental or emotional disturbance, that he was acting under unusual pressure or influences or under the domination of another person, that Thomas's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect, and that Thomas had six children, at least one of whom had expressed a wish to get an answer as to why his father killed his mother when he grows up. The jury found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and justified a sentence of death.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Springs was represented at trial by the Sebastian County Public Defender, John Joplin, and his deputy, Cash Haaser. Joplin had participated in one prior capital case, Haaser in none. Before trial, Joplin and Haaser sought and obtained an order directing that Thomas be examined psychiatrically. An order was sent to the Arkansas Department of Human Services, Division ofMental Health Services, which forwarded the order and case file to a private psychologist, Paul Deyoub, Ph.D. Dr. Deyoub submitted a forensic evaluation report in which he opined that Springs had the capacity to understand the proceedings against him and to assist effectively in his own defense, that he did not have a mental disease or defect, and that he had the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Dr. Deyoub reported that Springs had average intelligence and "[t]here may have been anger, rage, and yet there was no mental disease or defect which would have affected his ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct." Springs' lawyers did not, after receiving Dr. Deyoub's report, pursue the issues regarding his mental condition, except in the penalty phase of the trial, when they introduced medical records showing that he had twice sought treatment for depression after Christina left - once on December 16, 2004, and again on January 2, 2005.

On direct appeal, Springs was represented by W.H. Taylor, Steve Vowell, Tonya L. Patrick, and Margie Alsbrook. The Arkansas Supreme Court considered and rejected these claims of error:

1. the trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to intervene and appoint a head-injury expert to examine Springs;

2. the trial court erred by submitting aggravating circumstances to the jury that were not warranted by the evidence;

3. the trial court erred by refusing to give Springs' proffered jury instruction on mitigating circumstances and, instead, submitting Arkansas Model Criminal Instruction Form 2;

4. the trial court erred by admitting State's Exhibits 23 and 24, photographs of the victim at the hospital;

5. the trial court erred by allowing Springs to be charged with capital murder because the death penalty is unconstitutional; and6. the trial court abused its discretion by admitting victim-impact evidence during the sentencing phase because, under Arkansas law, such evidence is irrelevant in capital murder cases.

Springs v. State, 368 Ark. 256, 244 S.W.3d 683 (2006) (Springs I).

Springs sought post-conviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 and was represented by Jeff Rosenzweig, a lawyer with considerable experience in death penalty cases.⁴ The Rule 37 petition raised the following points:

1. Springs' trial lawyers were ineffective in failing to establish that there was an organic or physical basis for Springs' actions. This failure prejudiced him in both the guilt and penalty phases.

2. Springs' trial lawyers were ineffective in failing to conduct proper voir dire on the issue of the interracial aspects of

...