149 So. 3d 1048
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Smith pled guilty to one count of kidnapping, one count of armed carjacking, and one count of felony fleeing; all sentences concurrent with credit for time served.
- Smith sought post-conviction relief under UPCCRA; two PCR motions were dismissed as cumulative/ successive writs.
- Circuit court initially dismissed the first PCR motion (Dec. 2011) and then summarily dismissed the second (Feb. 2012) as a successive writ.
- There was an order for a mental evaluation pre-plea, but no evaluation occurred and no threshold competency finding was made.
- The court held Rule 9.06 inapplicable because competency was not issue and denied mental-evaluation relief; issues of ineffective assistance and armed-carjacking basis were resolved against Smith.
- The court ultimately affirmed the dismissal of Smith’s PCR motions; a dissent urged retroactive competency evaluation and a remand for a competency hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith was entitled to a mental evaluation and competency hearing before pleading | Smith | State | Issue denied; no threshold competency finding; Rule 9.06 not triggered |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue mental evaluation | Smith | State | Procedural bar applies; no merit; plea was satisfactory and benefits from defense efforts |
| Whether there was a factual basis for armed carjacking | Smith | State | No merit; the plea record provided an adequate factual basis |
| Whether cumulative error requires reversal | Smith | State | No cumulative error since no individual error found |
| Whether the mental-evaluation issue falls under UPCCRA exceptions to procedural bars | Smith | State | Procedural bar generally applies; exception acknowledged but not satisfied by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. State, 984 So.2d 308 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (retrospective competency hearing not curing pretrial failure to evaluate)
- Bradley v. State, 116 So.3d 1093 (Miss.Ct.App. 2013) (Rule 9.06 applicability and competency standards)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (fundamental-rights exceptions to procedural bars)
- Sanders v. State, 9 So.3d 1132 (Miss. 2009) (plain language requires competency hearing after order for psychiatric evaluation)
- Coleman v. State, 2013 WL 3067576 (Miss. 2013) (retrospective competency hearing not a cure for failure to evaluate)
- Stovall v. State, 873 So.2d 1056 (Miss.Ct. App. 2004) (procedural-bar analysis in post-conviction)