Donald Keith Smith v. State of Mississippi
149 So. 3d 1027
Miss.2014Background
- Smith was indicted for kidnapping, armed carjacking, and felony evading; the trial court ordered a psychiatric/mental evaluation and continued the trial multiple times, but the ordered evaluation was never completed.
- The record contains an initial oral motion (not transcribed) requesting a continuance and psychiatric exam; subsequent orders directed evaluation — one agreed order stated the exam would be at Smith’s expense.
- Smith was transported to the Mississippi State Hospital on a scheduled date but, according to affidavits, was returned to jail without being seen; Smith later pled guilty and was sentenced.
- Smith filed post-conviction relief (PCR) claims asserting the court accepted his guilty plea without a completed court-ordered competency evaluation and without a competency hearing; he also alleged ineffective assistance for failing to pursue evaluation.
- The trial court dismissed his PCR as successive; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the record didn’t show the evaluation was ordered to resolve competency. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether ordering an evaluation required a competency hearing and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether successive-PCR bar precludes review of competency claim | Smith: claim implicates fundamental right not to be tried while incompetent, so successive-writ bar should not apply | State: procedural bar under Miss. Code §99-39-23(6) bars successive PCR | Court: fundamental-rights exception applies; review permitted |
| Whether a court order for mental evaluation automatically required a competency hearing under URCCC 9.06 | Smith: the trial court’s order triggered Rule 9.06 duties (evaluation + competency hearing) and failure to hold them violated due process | State/Ct of Appeals: record ambiguous; courts may order evaluations for non-competency reasons (insanity, mitigation), so Rule 9.06 may not have been triggered | Court: when record is ambiguous, remand for evidentiary hearing to determine why evaluation was ordered; if ordered for competency, conviction invalid |
| Whether the existing record conclusively shows the evaluation was for competency | Smith: affidavits, history of mental illness, counsel’s request, and his on-the-record statements about depression/psychosis support competency concern | State/Ct of Appeals: agreed order stating defendant-pay and absence of explicit competency finding suggest other purposes; county payment statute indicates competency evaluations would be county-funded | Held: record is ambiguous; not enough to decide on summary dismissal — needs evidentiary hearing |
| Appropriate remedy if evaluation was ordered to determine competency | Smith: entitled to vindication of right, and failure to hold hearing requires relief | State (at times conceded remand for retrospective hearing) | Court: prospective remedy is new trial (or institutionalization after proper procedures); retrospective competency hearing not an available remedy per Coleman; remand for evidentiary hearing to determine necessity of new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (fundamental due-process right not to be tried while incompetent)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (trial court must hold competency hearing when evidence raises sufficient doubt)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (standard for competency to stand trial)
- Sanders v. State, 9 So.3d 1132 (Miss. 2009) (ordering psychiatric evaluation to determine competency triggers mandatory competency hearing)
- Hearn v. State, 3 So.3d 722 (Miss. 2008) (articulating Dusky-derived competency factors)
- Coleman v. State, 127 So.3d 161 (Miss. 2013) (appropriate remedy for failure to hold competency hearing is new trial, not retrospective hearing)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (errors affecting fundamental rights excepted from UPCCRA procedural bars)
- Bragg v. Carter, 367 So.2d 165 (Miss. 1978) (constitutional claims not rigidly subject to res judicata because constitution supersedes judicial expediency)