State v. Vandergriff

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: W. Brent Powell, Judge
• Citation: State v. Vandergriff, 685 S.W.3d 18 (Mo. 2024)
• Docket Number: SC 100388,SC 100486
• Decision Date: 20 March 2024
• Parties: STATE EX REL. Brian DORSEY, Petitioner, v. David VANDERGRIFF, Respondent. In re: Brian Dorsey, Petitioner, v. David Vandergriff, Warden, Potosi Correctional Center, Respondent.
• topic: Constitutional Law,Ongoing or Prospective Litigation,Civil Procedure

685 S.W.3d 18

STATE EX REL. Brian DORSEY, Petitioner,

v.David VANDERGRIFF, Respondent.

In re: Brian Dorsey, Petitioner,

v.David Vandergriff, Warden, Potosi Correctional Center, Respondent.

No. SC 100388, No. SC 100486

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.

Opinion issued March 20, 2024

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS IN HABEAS CORPUS

In both cases, Dorsey was represented by Megan G. Crane of the MacArthur Justice Center in St. Louis, (314) 254-8540.

The state was represented by Gregory M. Goodwin of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City, (573) 751-3321.

W. Brent Powell, Judge

On December 13, 2023, this Court issued a warrant of execution for Brian Dorsey and ordered Dorsey’s previously imposed death sentence to be carried out on April 9, 2024. Subsequently, Dorsey filed two separate petitions for writ of habeas corpus with this Court, claiming: (1) he is actually innocent of the first-degree mur- der offenses he pleaded guilty to committing because he was incapable of deliberation at the time of the offenses due to drug-induced psychosis; (2) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel due to a flat-fee arrangement that created a conflict of interest; and (3) his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment because he belongs to a unique class of persons for whom the penological goals supporting capital punishment are no longer met.

After careful review of his habeas petitions, supporting documents, and briefing, this Court finds Dorsey fails to present any legally cognizable claims for habeas relief. Dorsey does not deny he committed the murders and has not established he is actually innocent of first-degree murder. This Court previously found Dorsey’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest lacks merit, and Dorsey is procedurally barred from raising this same claim again in his writ petition. Finally, Dorsey’s Eighth Amendment claim is without merit and, ultimately, a plea for clemency, which is beyond this Court’s review and authority. Accordingly, this Court denies both petitions for writ of habeas corpus.¹

Legal and Factual Background²

On December 23, 2006, Brian Dorsey called his cousin, S.B., and told her he needed help. Dorsey needed to borrow money to pay two drug dealers who were in his apartment. S.B.’s husband, B.B., called a friend to help, then the couple drove to Dorsey’s apartment. After B.B. and B.B. arrived, the two drug dealers left. The couple drove Dorsey back to the home they shared with their four-year-old daughter to spend the night. Dorsey spent the evening drinking and playing pool in the couple’s "shop" with family and friends. Before they played pool, a friend moved B.B.’s unloaded, single-shot shotgun off the pool table to another location in the shop.

Eventually, the couple and their child went to bed. The couple slept in one room and the child in another. Dorsey retrieved the single-shot shotgun from the shop and entered the couple’s room. Dorsey loaded the shotgun, fatally shot S.B. at close range, emptied the chamber, reloaded the shotgun, and fatally shot B.B. at close range. Dorsey then raped S.B.’s body and poured bleach over her torso and genital area. Before fleeing the scene, Dorsey locked the couple’s bedroom door and stole various items of personal property and S.B.’s car.³ After Dorsey left, he drove around in S.B.’s car and attempted to sell the stolen items to repay his drug debt. The next day, after the couple did not show up for a family gathering, S.B.’s parents went to the couple’s house. There, S.B.’s parents found the couple’s four-year-old daughter, who told them her parents had been locked in the bedroom all day. When S.B.’s parents were able to get into the locked bedroom, they found the couple dead.

On December 26, 2006, Dorsey turned himself in to police. After being read his Miranda⁴ rights, Dorsey confessed, telling police they had the "right guy concerning the deaths of [the couple]." Dorsey was charged with two counts of first-degree murder. The State sought the death penalty pursuant to section 565.020.2.⁵ Dorsey qualified for appointed counsel, and the Missouri Public Defender’s Office retained two private attorneys who had experience handling capital cases to represent Dorsey. The public defender's office paid the attorneys a flat fee for their representation. Funds independent of counsel’s flat fee were available if counsel needed to hire an expert or an investigator or if counsel needed other resources. In preparation for trial, Dorsey's trial counsel had a neuropsychologist and clinical psychologist meet Dorsey and perform testing on him.

In March 2008, after consultation with trial counsel, Dorsey pleaded guilty to the two counts of first-degree murder. At the plea hearing, Dorsey answered "yes" to the circuit court’s questions as to whether he killed both people, did so after deliberation, and knowingly caused their deaths by shooting them. The circuit court then held a jury trial for the penalty phase. Dorsey’s counsel called nine witnesses, including one expert witness - a clinical psychologist - who prepared a psychological summary detailing Dorsey’s family history, psychiatric history, and substance abuse history, all of which was admitted into evidence and submitted to the jury. The psychologist and one of Dorsey’s family members also testified about Dorsey’s history of mental health problems, suicide attempts, and drug and alcohol addictions. Dorsey testified in his own defense and told the jury he was sorry for what he had done. The jury found seven aggravating factors and returned a verdict recommending Dorsey be sentenced to death for each murder. The circuit court sentenced Dorsey accordingly.

This Court affirmed Dorsey’s convictions on direct appeal, State v. Dorsey, 318 S.W.3d 648 (Mo. banc 2010), and the United States Supreme Court denied Dorsey’s request to review his case, Dorsey v. Missouri, 562 U.S. 1067, 131 S.Ct. 651, 178 L.Ed.2d 488 (2010). Dorsey filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. The circuit court appointed counsel to represent Dorsey. His counsel filed an amended motion arguing, among many other arguments, that trial counsel was ineffective based on a conflict of interest arising out of the flat-fee arrangement and for not investigating a diminished capacity defense or presenting mitigating evidence relating to Dorsey’s state of mind. After a three-day evidentiary hearing, the circuit court entered findings and a judgment overruling Dorsey’s postconviction relief motion. This Court affirmed the circuit court’s ruling. Dorsey v. State, 448 S.W.3d 276 (Mo. banc 2014).

Dorsey then filed a petition for habeas relief in the federal district court arguing, in part, his trial counsel had a conflict of interest because of the flat-fee arrangement and was ineffective for failing to present a diminished capacity defense. The district court denied Dorsey’s petition, Dorsey v. Steele, No. 4:15-08000-CV-RK, 2019 WL 4740518 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 27, 2019), and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Dorsey v. Vandergrift, 30 F.4th 752 (8th Cir. 2022). Dorsey requested the United States Supreme Court review the denial of his federal habeas petition, but the Su- preme Court again denied the request. Dorsey v. Vandergriff, — U.S. —, 143 S. Ct. 790, 215 L.Ed.2d 55 (2023).⁶ In February 2023, the State filed a motion to set an execution date, which this Court sustained after considering the State’s motion and Dorsey’s responsive pleadings.

On December 13, 2023, this Court issued an execution warrant and set the execution date for April 9, 2024. On December 22, 2023, Dorsey filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court, claiming (1) his execution would violate the Sixth Amendment because he was denied effective assistance of counsel in that his trial counsel’s flat-fee arrangement created a conflict of interest and (2) he is actually innocent of first-degree murder because he was incapable of deliberation due to drug-induced psychosis. Dorsey asks this Court to issue a writ prohibiting his execution and to appoint a special master to conduct an evidentiary hearing. On February 25, 2024, Dorsey filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court, claiming his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment because he belongs to a unique class of persons for whom the penological goals supporting capital punishment are no longer met. In his second writ petition, Dorsey asks this Court to convert his death sentence to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

Standard of Review

[1–6] "[A] writ of habeas corpus may be issued when a person is restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution or laws of the state or federal government." State ex rel. Amrine v. Roper, 102 S.W.3d 541, 545 (Mo. banc 2003). A writ of habeas corpus will be denied if it "raises procedurally barred claims that could have been raised at an earlier stage …." Id. at 546. Petitioners can overcome this procedural bar by showing a jurisdictional issue, cause and prejudice, or that manifest injustice would occur without habeas relief. Id. Claims of actual innocence may give rise to habeas relief under the manifest injustice standard either as a gateway to review the merits of the petitioner’s otherwise defaulted constitutional claims or, in some cases, as a freestanding claim of actual innocence.⁷ Id. at 546-48. Both gateway and freestanding claims of actual innocence require "new evidence to support the claim that was not available at trial …. " State ex rel. Barton v. Stange, 597 S.W.3d 661, 664 n.4 (Mo. banc 2020) (per curiam). A habeas petitioner bears the burden of proof to show he or she is "entitled to habeas corpus relief." State ex rel. Lyons v. Lombardi, 303 S.W.3d 523, 525 (Mo. banc 2010).

Analysis

I. Actual Innocence

Dorsey alleges he is actually innocent of first-degree murder, and, therefore, his death sentences are a manifest injustice. Specifically, Dorsey alleges he is...