Erik Wayne Hollie v. State of Mississippi
174 So. 3d 824
| Miss. | 2015Background
- In Sept. 2009 Erik Wayne Hollie robbed a gas-station attendant and two days later killed the owner of a pawn shop; Hollie confessed, saying he was led by “the Lord.”
- Defense counsel moved for a mental evaluation; the trial court ordered one and Dr. W. Criss Lott examined Hollie and produced a report finding him competent.
- Before any formal competency hearing under URCCC 9.06 occurred, Hollie pleaded guilty to both armed robbery and capital murder; the court accepted the pleas without adjudicating competency or admitting Dr. Lott’s report into evidence.
- At sentencing Hollie instructed counsel to present no mitigating evidence and personally asked the jury to sentence him to death; the jury imposed death based on a single aggravator: a prior violent felony (the armed-robbery plea).
- Hollie filed no timely post-trial motions or direct appeal; the state supreme court reviewed the death sentence under the mandatory statutory review provision and raised competency as dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hollie) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a competency hearing was required after the court ordered a mental evaluation | Order of evaluation showed reasonable grounds; failure to hold hearing violated due process; plea and sentence must be vacated | Hollie waived the right by pleading guilty and failing to object; any error is forfeited or harmless | Court: Ordering evaluation creates mandatory Rule 9.06 hearing; failure to hold hearing is reversible error — pleas, convictions, and sentences vacated and remanded for competency determination |
| Whether a retrospective competency hearing or other remedial procedure suffices | Retroactive hearing inadequate to satisfy Rule 9.06; defendant must be retried or institutionalized after a proper evaluation/hearing | State argued retrospective hearing or consideration of examiner’s report would cure defect | Court: Retroactive hearing is not an available remedy when evaluation was ordered and no hearing held; must follow Rule 9.06 procedures pre-trial (citing Coleman and Smith) |
| Validity of the armed-robbery conviction used as the sole aggravator | The armed-robbery plea was entered without competency hearing; thus prior conviction used to aggravate death sentence is suspect and must be reviewed beyond face of record | State relied on plea transcript as proof of prior conviction and argued no separate review required or that Hollie waived | Court: Because the competency-evaluation order covered both charges and the prior conviction was the sole aggravator, the robbery conviction was reversed and vacated pending competency determination |
| Whether the State may seek death on remand (double jeopardy/severity of proof of prior conviction) | (Concurring opinions) The record did not establish a prior conviction (no entered judgment/sentence) and the plea was not "previous" for aggravator purposes; double jeopardy may bar a new death penalty attempt | State did not advance a persuasive reply in majority opinion; some justices dissent | Majority did not formally bar retrial on death if competency later found; concurrences argue double jeopardy and timing issues may preclude seeking death on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (defines competency to stand trial standard)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (trial court must hold hearing when competency is in doubt; waiver cannot substitute)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (prohibits trying or convicting an incompetent defendant)
- Sanders v. State, 9 So.3d 1132 (Miss. 2009) (ordering a mental exam is a per se showing that a competency hearing is mandatory)
- Hearn v. State, 3 So.3d 722 (Miss. 2008) (competency-evaluation order followed by sufficient in-court testimony can satisfy Rule 9.06)
- Coleman v. State, 127 So.3d 161 (Miss. 2013) (retrospective competency hearings generally inadequate)
- Smith v. State, 149 So.3d 1027 (Miss. 2014) (where an evaluation was ordered for competency, defendant must be retried or institutionalized following a proper Rule 9.06 evaluation and hearing)
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (upholding procedures requiring appellate review of capital sentencing findings)