State v. Jimmie Lee Smith
878 N.W.2d 135
Wis.2016Background
- Defendant Jimmie Lee Smith was convicted of second-degree sexual assault in 2009 and sentenced to 25 years initial confinement + 15 years extended supervision.
- In postconviction proceedings Smith alleged he was incompetent at trial and sentencing and sought to vacate his conviction; the postconviction court ordered retrospective competency evaluations and held an evidentiary hearing.
- Court-appointed and defense experts (Drs. Pankiewicz and Collins) opined retrospectively that Smith likely was incompetent at the time of trial and sentencing, relying heavily on jail/medical records and the sentencing allocution.
- Trial counsel (Attorney Sargent) testified he met with Smith multiple times, never doubted his competency, and that Smith assisted in jury selection, plea discussions, and knowingly waived the right to testify.
- The postconviction court credited counsel and the trial judge’s contemporaneous interactions and found Smith competent; the court of appeals reversed, giving greater weight to the experts and ordering a new trial; the Supreme Court of Wisconsin granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for postconviction retrospective competency finding | Court of appeals failed to defer; postconviction court's factual finding should be reviewed for clear error | Court of appeals applied correct standard and should weigh expert evidence favoring reversal | Postconviction court’s competency finding is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard (deferential); court of appeals erred by reweighing evidence |
| Weight of expert retrospective evaluations vs. contemporaneous observations | Trial counsel and trial judge observations are entitled to deference even against retrospective expert opinions | Retrospective expert reports and jail/DOC records furnish ample evidence to doubt competency | Postconviction court permissibly credited counsel and trial-court interactions over experts; its finding is supported by the record |
| Proper remedy when record shows "reason to doubt" competency | Where retrospective hearing already occurred, appellate remedy is review for clear error; vacatur/new trial only if court finds incompetency | If record shows reason to doubt competency, judgment should be vacated and new trial ordered | Where a retrospective competency hearing was held and court found competence, appellate remedy is review of that factual finding; vacatur requires a finding of incompetence |
| Whether postconviction court engaged in impermissible fact-finding | Court of appeals allegedly engaged in improper fact-finding by weighing evidence itself | Court of appeals argued postconviction court improperly discounted experts | Supreme Court reverses court of appeals for weighing evidence and failing to give deference to trial court credibility determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Byrge, 237 Wis. 2d 197 (2000) (competency determinations are factual and reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard)
- State v. Garfoot, 207 Wis. 2d 214 (1997) (deference to trial court on competency findings because of its superior opportunity to observe witness and defendant)
- Pickens v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 549 (1980) (formulation that competence-to-represent-self findings are upheld unless totally unsupported by the record)
- State v. Johnson, 133 Wis. 2d 207 (1986) (retrospective competency evaluations may be meaningful and are permissible)
- State ex rel. Haskins v. Cnty. Courts of Dodge & Milwaukee Cntys., 62 Wis. 2d 250 (1974) (medical diagnoses do not automatically determine legal competency; court must weigh evidence)
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992) (defense counsel often has best-informed view of client’s ability to participate)
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (articulation of the "clearly erroneous" standard: appellate court may overturn factual findings only when left with definite and firm conviction a mistake was committed)