Richard Chapman v. State of Mississippi
167 So. 3d 1170
| Miss. | 2015Background
- In 1982 Richard Chapman was convicted of rape and sentenced to life at age 16; he never filed a direct appeal and the trial transcript/record is missing or destroyed.
- Chapman filed multiple post-conviction relief (PCR) motions years later; each was dismissed as time-barred or procedurally barred by lower courts.
- Chapman alleges the State and trial court failed to preserve the trial record and physical evidence, and that trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a direct appeal (and thus not obtaining a transcript).
- The absence of a record prevents meaningful review of Chapman’s constitutional claims (due process; ineffective assistance), and he seeks reconstruction or an equivalent of the trial record.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari, held Chapman’s allegations implicate fundamental constitutional issues, reversed the procedural dismissals, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to locate or reconstruct the record (and potentially for appointment of counsel or a new trial if reconstruction fails).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether destruction/loss of trial record violates due process and excuses PCR time bars | Chapman: statutory and constitutional due-process violation because trial record/transcript and physical evidence were destroyed, denying meaningful appeal | State: PCRs were time-barred and successive; lack of record does not negate statutory time limits and Chapman offered no proof record was destroyed | Court: Allegations of destroyed record implicate fundamental rights; procedural bars in PCR do not apply; remanded for evidentiary hearing to locate/reconstruct record |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file direct appeal and secure transcript | Chapman: trial counsel agreed to file appeal, was paid, but did not, depriving Chapman of transcript and appellate review | State: Chapman’s PCR is untimely and successive; failure to show diligence or extraordinary circumstances to excuse delay | Court: Failure to secure transcript can be ineffective assistance; because no record exists and Chapman lacked an opportunity to reconstruct, an evidentiary hearing is required to assess counsel’s performance and prejudice |
| Procedural-bar / statute-of-limitations defense to Chapman’s PCR petitions | Chapman: exceptions apply because the missing record and alleged constitutional violations excuse procedural bars | State: Chapman filed PCRs decades late, did not show diligence or extraordinary circumstances; motions are time-barred and successive | Court: Errors affecting fundamental constitutional rights are excepted from UPCCRA bars; lower courts erred in dismissing as procedurally barred; remand for hearing |
| Appropriate remedy if record cannot be located/reconstructed | Chapman: requests reconstruction or new trial if equivalent cannot be produced | State: Opposes reopening where statutory bars apply; argues lack of proof that loss caused delay | Court: Trial court must attempt to locate/reconstruct; if adequate equivalent cannot be produced, Chapman may be entitled to a new trial; appoint counsel if indigent for the evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1963) (right to a meaningful appeal)
- Watts v. State, 717 So.2d 314 (Miss. 1998) (lack of record can impede meaningful review; guidance on reconstruction/equivalent picture)
- United States v. Selva, 559 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir. 1977) (absence of substantial record portion can mandate reversal or reconstruction)
- United States v. Renton, 700 F.2d 154 (5th Cir. 1983) (counsel not involved at trial cannot show specific prejudice from missing record; reconstruction/remedy principles)
- Brawner v. State, 947 So.2d 254 (Miss. 2006) (trial counsel’s duty to ensure partial transcript exists for appeal)