*1 GOODWIN, Appellant, Paul T. Missouri, Respondent.
STATE of
No. SC 86278. Missouri,
Supreme Court of
En Banc.
2,May 2006.
Rehearing May Denied 2006. *3 Pendergraph, K. Office of the
Melinda Columbia, Defender, ap- Public State pellant. *4 Nixon, General, (Jay) Atty.
Jeremiah W.
McNamara,
E.
J. Mackel-
Leslie
Shaun
General,
Attys.
prang, Asst.
Jefferson
City,
respondent.
for
PRICE, JR., Judge.
RAY
WILLIAM
I) Introduction
to death
Paul Goodwin was sentenced
Crotts,
for
murder of Mrs. Joan
upheld
widow her sixties. This Court
ap-
his conviction and sentence on direct
Goodwin,
peal.
A short time Crotts death, injuries on her function. Goodwin she had bruises to attend a social home buttocks, shoulders, back, driveway yelled: face, chest, her in the confronted house, knees, bitch. your fat ass back and both arms and hands. “get thighs, got coming you.” one for Mrs. Crotts’ and a broken eight I’ve had broken ribs She the con- daughter intervened and ended defensive Many of the wounds were hip. frontation, from was evicted injuries but Goodwin were not Many of the wounds. stairs, the board- boardinghouse. As he left fall but consistent with a down “I’m inghouse, he said Mrs. Crotts: beating. of a instead this, bitch.” going get you Pepsi found the note police later, half Mrs. Crotts year A and a were on fingerprints bottle. Goodwin’s report a.m. to police called the at 5:00 in the bootprints They also found both. her vehicle. tampered had with someone and a Pepsi. cigarette Two butts spilled arrived, report- An and Mrs. Crotts officer smoked, were the brand Goodwin wrapper, papers some taken ed that she had found outside the in the basement. Just found ground. car and thrown on the from her door, hearing aid. police found Goodwin’s *5 had been reported dogs also that her She Good- obtaining a warrant search After on backyard step and that a let out of her home, stains police the found blood win’s The porch place. was out the back jeans, underpants, and pair of his on in the suspicious persons officer found no bootprints matched the boots. The boots neighborhood. Pepsi. spilled the left Mrs. already entered Goodwin had up at work picked Goodwin police in the morning house that and hid Crotts’ being sign-lan- offered a day. After Good- police until after the left. basement of his being advised guage interpreter the basement stairs up win then came kill- admitted to rights, Miranda Goodwin and confronted carrying sledgehammer the details provided ing Mrs. Crotts grabbed kitchen. He Mrs. Crotts her above. living the arm and forced her into her of murder and juryA convicted Goodwin per- Mrs. Crotts to room where he forced af- This Court him to death. sentenced her him. He then took form oral sex on then appeal. direct firmed his drinking a two- to the kitchen. While back post-conviction relief a motion for filed piece on a Pepsi, bottle of he wrote liter court de- court. The motion the motion next,” and forced her paper “you are most of his claims. hearing nied a for stairs. to the head of the basement walk rest of his then denied the motion court hands, the he her down both shoved With hearing. claims after a unmov- face down and lay stairs. As she stairs, of the ing at the bottom Ill) Legal standard he hit the her for a while. Then watched A) post- Prerequisites for the times with of her head several back conviction left the house. sledgehammer and may granted be her, movant Before daughter found still Mrs. Crotts’ court, hearing by a motion afternoon, post-conviction re- alive, and Mrs. Crotts to a he is entitled show that at the he must police to a officer lated these events the “If court shall determine hearing. the evening. Mrs. died hospital. Crotts of the and records and the files inflicted motion that Goodwin autopsy An revealed the movant show that conclusively case body. In addition injuries all over her
25 he prejudice To establish sonableness. relief, hearing shall not be to no entitled there is a reasonable show that must case, shall issue In such the court held. that, unpro- counsel’s but for probability of law as findings of fact and conclusions errors, pro- the result of fessional 29.15(j).” in Rule provided A have been different. ceeding would In to an evidentia- order to be entitled probability is a probability reasonable 1) facts, cite ry hearing, a movant must in the confidence to undermine sufficient true, conclusions, which, if would outcome. 2) relief; the factual entitle movant 390-91, 362, Taylor, 529 U.S. v. Williams refuted allegations must be (2000) 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 120 S.Ct. 8) record; complained the matters omitted). (internal in- prove “To citations Belcher prejudice of must the movant. regard penalty to death with effectiveness State, (Mo.App. must show sentencing, defendant] [the 1990). evidentiary hearing An is not per- that, counsels’ ineffective but required the motion court determines formance, probability is a reasonable there motion and the files and records after have concluded jury that the would conclusively show that of the case mitigating balancing aggravating Rule movant is entitled to no relief. circumstances, not warranted.” death was of a motion 29.15(g). Appellate review Rousan v. action to a determina- court’s is limited findings and con- tion of [whether] motion court deter When the ... are clusions of the motion court ineffective, “[a] counsel was mines whether 29.15(j). clearly erroneous. Rule exists that trial coun strong presumption *6 1, Blankenship, v. 830 S.W.2d 16 State appellant and an bears sel was effective (Mo. 1992). banc overcoming presump of that heavy burden of the evidence.” by preponderance tion B) Requirements post- for (Mo. 753, Tokar, 761 v. 918 S.W.2d State relief conviction omitted). 1996) (citations There is banc actually post- In order to receive alleged that counsel’s presumption also “a court, relief from the motion conviction Id. strategy.” trial omissions were sound [f]irst, the defendant must show that strategy ground “Trial is not a at 766. performance counsel’s was deficient. of counsel.” State ineffective assistance made requires showing that counsel (Mo. Chambers, 93, banc 109 891 S.W.2d errors so serious that counsel was 1994). after a “Strategic choices made functioning guaranteed as the “counsel” the of the law and thorough investigation the defendant the Amendment. Sixth opinions are vir plausible relevant to facts Second, the defendant must show Tokar, 918 tually unchallengeable.” prejudiced the performance the deficient Strickland, 466 (quoting at 761 S.W.2d showing that requires defense. This 2052). 690-91, 104 S.Ct. “Where U.S. at as to errors were so serious counsel’s possible strate investigated has trial, a the of a fair deprive defendant rarely second-guess courts should gies, is reliable. trial whose result Middleton v. actual choices.” counsel’s 668, Washington, 2003). 466 U.S. (Mo. Strickland v. 726, State, banc 736 (1984). 687, 2052, L.Ed.2d 674 104 S.Ct. 80 C) Review of motion court ineffectiveness, a defendant To establish the mo review of representation This Court’s must show that counsel’s relief post-conviction of tion court’s denial objective standard of rea- fell an below 26
is to a eighth prosecutor’s closing limited determination whether claim making court clearly argument “the motion erred was improper.
its findings of fact and of law.” conclusions V) Analysis State, claims 678,
Skillicorn v.
22
681
S.W.3d
(Mo.
2000),
denied,
banc
cert.
531 U.S.
A) Mental retardation
1039,
630,
121 S.Ct.
adaptive score when teenager was a was within [Goodwin] IV) Points relied on mentally range retarded other alleges seven instances of 69; verbal a kin- testing scores on were error counsel ineffectiveness and clear dergarten teacher referred court, the motion in this as follows: appeal, because Special School District she 1) motion court it erred because retarded; mentally believed he re- mentally found that Goodwin was not third and fourth failed 2) tarded; trial counsel to investi- failed grades. gate mo- suggested and rebut State’s *7 tive that Goodwin blamed Mrs. Crotts for by 1. Claim refuted the record 3) house; boarding his from the eviction major presented This is the issue investigate trial failed to and rebut counsel post-conviction proceeding: in this wheth previ- the claim that had State’s er or not Goodwin is retarded. Unit ously a threatened Mrs. Crotts with Supreme held Atkins v. ed States Court 4) trial failed to sledgehammer; Virginia, person, that a as retarded de evidence, investigate present and medical law, by state cannot be executed for fined trial, injuries at that Mrs. Crotts’ were 2242, 304, murder. 536 U.S. 122 153 S.Ct. 5) stairs; by caused her fall down the (2002). This is because re L.Ed.2d to investigate counsel failed Goodwin’s are persons categorically culpa less tarded deliberate, or ability plan details and 316, at average than the criminal. Id. ble a easily evidence that he was confused as 2242. 122 S.Ct. 6) child; trial counsel ineffective for was matter, preliminary inconsistent at the As a Goodwin was presenting theories 7) a guilt phases; hearing the mo- not entitled to on this issue penalty and and refusing tion erred to hold his claim of mental retardation is because injection conclusively is and unusual refuted the record lethal cruel 819, punishment. Goodwin an trial. Morrow v. also makes 2000). up the normal (Mo. mildly but not evidentiary hearing retarded “An banc range, of a learn- court deter- there’s an indication required the motion and testing.” up the motion and the files on ing disability mines that shows conclusively of the case show records Goodwin’s Dr. discussed Schultz to no relief. Rule the movant is entitled history, his employment impairment, his Blankenship, 29.15(g).” State family, his relation- relationship with his 1,16 fiancé, writings a of his with his few ship The trial record includes the life, journal, daily his in his fiancé’s found experts, expert of three witnesses. Of the murder, and the results account of the his Rosalyn Dr. and Dr. Richard Wet- Schultz testing. Dr. Schultz testified of his and Dr. John psychologists zel are both In- Adult she administered Wechsler psychiatrist. experts These Rabun is III The re- telligence Scale to Goodwin. retarded, testified that Goodwin was not IQ per- a verbal sults indicated conditions, other but that he suffered from IQfull IQ of and a resultant formance responsibility undercut his which Range Achievement of 80. On the Wide murder. Test, eighth- an demonstrated Rosalyn on Dr. Schultz was retained level, reading fifth-grade spelling grade behalf of Goodwin.1 Dr. Schultz extensive- level, level. fourth-grade arithmetic Goodwin, family, and his ly interviewed suf- Dr. concluded that Goodwin Schultz social worker. Dr. Schultz evaluated major personality depression, from fered half before Goodwin for eleven and a hours disorder, intellectual function- borderline testing, personality trial. conducted She Dr. Schultz ing, learning disorders. assessments, intelligence competency responsible that Goodwin was opined tests, tests, tests, malingering achievement for his conduct. tests, history. psychological personal and a Rabun, Dr. next.2 Dr. testified John examination, direct she testified: “He On Goodwin, in- spent five hours with Rabun a lower impairments, also has intellectual mother, reviewed terviewed IQ, range, not in the level of retarded by Dr. Schultz materials submitted very so he—didn’t achieve well. He Wetzel, rec- and examined Goodwin’s getting along peers.” wasn’t with his He school district. special ords from the reviewed and testified about Good- Schultz ‘Well, scores, they’re those testified: special school records from the win’s there, ones under particular records, listed Regarding school district. these FS, full size or tests, category which means IQ “Consistently stated: on the she all are IQ, those are —those IQ, your in the total IQ, verbal his full scale *8 well, three are all the fírst low as within range, meaning not as borderline the — is a Fellow in the psycholo- in 1994 and been licensed as a Examiners 1. Dr. Schultz has gist experience College as a since 1979. She has of Forensic Examiners. American teacher, special worked as learn- education Diplomat in the American Board She is also a ing disability specialist, was an assistant and Specialties. Psychological of University, professor at St. Louis Webster University University, Louis Medical St. supervising psychiatrist at 2. Dr. Rabun is School, University. Washington She re- and Hospital. graduated from He St. Louis State degree in education from ceived her master’s University Medical School in of Tennessee Washington University She then in 1972. Washing- residency completed at 1987. He psychology from St. Louis received a Ph.D. University He is certified in in 1991. ton University. a forensic She was certified as psychiatry. general and forensic both College of Forensic examiner the American range. special within the borderline The fourth school district viewed actually average.” records, one is—is records from reviewed Goodwin’s Louis and reviewed University, St. the evi- that the Diagnostic Dr. Rabun testified reports concerning dence and murder. and Manual of Disor- Statistical Mental Wetzel also testified Goodwin was ders, Fourth Edition characterizes border- functioning. of borderline intellectual He line and IQ as between 71 86. He testified testified: IQ “They’re indicates: not borderline all mentally category retarded. It’s dif- IQs That that his simply means are They ferent than mental retardation. average, 70 and 79. There’s between specific problems. They might have some retardation, you say mental and some- individual, bright average not be as body’s you’re saying they borderline function, work, they’re but able to take saying are You’re borderline retarded. themselves, themselves, care of bathe com- they’re mentally retarded. He’s not municate, independently, unlike the live mentally retarded. mentally retarded.” Dr. Rabun indicated low average Above that is and aver- history learning had a of saying my I’m age. And what best disabilities. Dr. Rabun concluded that all not low average. estimate is that he’s IQ of the administered tests to Goodwin IQ In his is picking up case the verbal placed him in borderline intel- range of quite per- different than the something ligence exception of with the the Nelson performance IQ formance IQ where the Test, placed Adult him in Reading which clearly low average shows that he’s intelligence. average range you average. things can That’s Dr. Rabun testified that Goodwin had no saying anything. per- do without problems adaptive functioning, with performance formance tests are called ability to bathe clothe “meaning his you something. because can do himself, desires, communicate his feed being When it comes to able func- himself, drive, work.” Dr. Rabun [and] to talk you you tion don’t have when give testified that Goodwin able to communicate, don’t have to home, to his directions recalled details average to can function in the low aver- actions,
the murder and his retained exten- range. .age narcotics, knowledge sive recalled his things that are de- When it comes to alcohol, giving use of recalled to his CPR pendent understanding language and on on girlfriend calling multiple occa- things communicating explaining sions, living after and remembered alone very people, with he’s down at either the girlfriend. the death of his mentally high end most retard- of where expert final was the to testi- Wetzel in the people put ed in or borderline are days fy.3 spent conducting two Dr. Wetzel range. psychological neuropyschological tests mentally But retarded. he’s still not on in 1999. He conducted an just problems in He this. has realistic brain, MRI of Goodwin’s interviewed mem- IQ of the—his scores family, pattern the re- And the bers of Goodwin’s reviewed *9 Schultz, just very are cut. It shows as he ports Dr. Rabun and re- clear of psychology School of He received Ph.D. professor 3. He of medical Medicine. is a psycholo- University in clinical professor neurological surgery from St. of in Louis Washington University gy and has respective departments psychiatry neu- worked for of Washington University rological surgery since 1970. of
29 year year severely from depressed, was tested to he was Goodwin was suffered disorders, getting personality farther and farther behind ver- from was of border- bally. just He couldn’t learn as fast intelligence, mentally line but was not re- verbally as other people were and he find required tarded. Counsel was to just kept falling behind. ineffec- expert. another Counsel was not failing shop tive for to around for someone upon Dr. Wetzel testified that based testify that Goodwinwas retarded. Goodwin’s borderline intellectual function- ing, learning disability, hearing and his in The motion court did not err impairment, capacity Goodwin had the to dismissing this claim. did not conform his conduct requirements to the of at present credible evidence the motion Crotts, the law when he killed but Mrs. support his claims of mental ability substantially that his to do so was retardation and of ineffective assistance impaired. for presenting those claims. highly qualified
Three witnesses testi- fied, trial, at his that Goodwin was not Required showing 3. of retarded. There was no evidence to the mental retardation contrary. The evidence the trial record Even if claim had not refutes Goodwin’s Goodwin’s new claim that he is retarded, record, been refuted he still he was not entitled to a would hearing on 29.15(j).4 this issue. Rule not be entitled to relief on claim. In State,
Johnson v. this Court held: “as a experts 2. Selection of bright-line test that defendant that can prove preponder mental retardation Moreover, the selection of ex evidence, ance of the as set out section witnesses, pert trial, at is not a matter 565.030.6,5 subject shall not be to the death successfully challenge Goodwin can in a (Mo. 535, penalty.” 102 S.W.3d 540 banc proceeding. 29.15 2003). Section 565.030.6 defines “mental “Generally, the selection of witnesses as: retardation” and the introduction of evidence are questions strategy virtually of trial A limi- involving condition substantial unchallengeable.” Kenley, State v. 952 functioning tations in character- general 250, (Mo. 1997). S.W.2d 266 banc “De- by significantly subaverage ized intellec- fense obligated shop counsel is not functioning tual with continual extensive an expert might provide witness who related deficits and limitations two or Mease, more [209] (citing 1992)). at 225 favorable [State u] [ (Mo. testimony.” banc Taylor, 98, 1996)]; 114 929 S.W.2d Id. at 268 (Mo. State v. banc munication, more health and leisure and skills, adaptive community safety, self-care, work, behaviors such as com- functional which use, home conditions self-direction, living, academics, social are (Mo. Taylor eigh- S.W.3d manifested documented before 2004). years age. banc Three testified that teen experts may judica- 4. This issue rise to the level res and the need to accommodate the claims of Jaynes, a” defendant. State ex ret Nixon v. possible ta since the issue of men- argued extensively tal at retardation so stage. the trial A balance must be "struck finality judgments statutory between the need for 5. All 2000. references are RSMo *10 Significantly subaverage a. Childhood, Adolescence, in Infancy, or functioning (American intellectual Psychi Mental Retardation atric Association It is defined requirement showing The first men- diagnostic as a feature of DSM-IV is “significantly subaverage tal retardation Id. Intellec “General mental retardation. functioning.” require- intellectual functioning tual is defined the intelli is taken nearly ment verbatim from the (IQ gence quotient IQ-equivalent) ob Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV of tained with or more of by assessment one Psychiatric the American Association standardized, individually administered (DSM-IV). First, M.D., Diag- Michael B. Id. intelligence tests....” IV, nostic and Statistical Manual Text Re- vision, Usually IQ First tests Diagnosed past Disorder were as follows: ligence twenty years over spread
None of evidence indicates manifest tests retarded. and documented mental retardation.6 In indicated that Goodwin is not fact, Only arguably eight independent intel- one of these tests is even has did not find tion when the first examination 6. Goodwin cannot show motion finding suffering erred trial effective. be from a mental defendant the words of court: Putney In the motion disease or defect. can (Mo.App.1990). Nor dispute Trial counsel had no reason for not counsel be considered ineffective findings experts were of the who consulted seeking psychologist when the out a third litany prior prior as the as well agreed first suf- experts during two consulted who evaluated depression, retarda- not ineffective for fered from not mental his lifetime. Counsel is failing get psychiatric second examina- tion. *11 in their five-point margin pected particular within of error attrib- of someone scale, uted to the Wechsler and it is inade- group, background, sociocultural age quate to raise triable issue of fact.7 community setting. Adaptive func- cannot showing make the initial may by various tioning be influenced “significantly subaverage of intellectual education, motivation, factors, including functioning” IQ, by his demonstrated characteristics, social and personality places consistently which him in the mid- opportunities, vocational and the mental eighties. seventies to He is squarely of general disorders and medical conditions intelligence borderline all as testified of may coexist with Mental Retarda- experts at trial. tion. 42. evidence that DSM-IV at Without b. Continual extensive related functioning “sig- Goodwin’s intellectual deficits limitations in nificantly subaverage,” there is no need to adaptive behavior adaptive on to a of move discussion requirement The second in outlined sec- belaboring point, behaviors.8 Without tion 565.030.6is also taken from the DSM- it is clear from the record that Goodwin’s AIV. defendant must demonstrate “con- inability adapta- to hear has affected his tinual extensive related deficits and limita- society, enough tion into is not but this tions in adaptive two more behaviors IQ overcome the evidence that Goodwin’s communication, self-care, such as home liv- places him of borderline intellectual func- skills, ing, use, social community self-di- tioning. rection, health safety, functional aca- demics, leisure and work....” Section c. Manifested and documented before 565.030.6. The adaptive DSM-IV defines eighteen years age of functioning.
Adaptive Lastly, functioning specifically refers to how ef- section 565.030.6 re- fectively cope quires individuals that a defendant mental with common establish they life demands and how well meet the retardation that is “manifested and docu- personal standards of independence ex- eighteen years age.” mented before of Manual, Diagnostic 7. The “[impairments Statistical 8. The DSM-IV indicates that trial, experts during which the IQ, relied on indi- adaptive functioning, in rather than a low cates: usually presenting symptoms are in indi- Significantly subaverage Retardation,” intellectual func- viduals with Mental but IQ tioning is defined as an of about 70 or “[p]roblems adaptation likely in are more (approximately below 2 standard deviations cogni- improve with remedial efforts than is mean). below the It should be noted that IQ, tive which tends to remain a more stable approxi- there is a measurement of error of indicates that scales attribute.” manual IQ, mately points assessing although Adaptive such as the Vineland Behavioral may vary from instrument instru- Scales and the American Association on Men- IQ (e.g., ment a Wechsler of 70 is consid- Adaptive may tal Retardation Behavior Scale 65-75). Thus, represent range ered to of provide be used "to clinical cutoff score that possible diagnose it is Mental Retarda- composite performance is a in a number IQs tion in individuals with between 70 and adaptive skill domains.” However the manu- significant 75 who exhibit deficits in al also cautions that "individual domain adaptive Conversely, behavior. Re- Mental may vary considerably reliability” scores diagnosed tardation would not be in an [pjresence significant handicaps and “the IQ individual with an lower 70 if than there many adaptive invalidates scale norms.” significant impairments are no deficits or at 42. DSM-IV adaptive functioning. DSM-IV at 41. *12 This requirement is also taken from the view with as well inter- [Goodwin] DSM-IV, which lists mental retardation as family and views with [GoodwinJ’s Usually Diagnosed “Disorder First to interesting friends. It is note that Infancy, Childhood, Adolescence,” or and interviews, upon based these Vineland requires diagnosis, for that the “onset Keyes ability Dr. scored to [Goodwin]’s DSM-IV, age years.” before Sec. 319 (3) the level of a communicate at three testing, age at 49. All of Goodwin’s before year Keyes acknowledged old. Dr. that above, and as discussed indicates that responders[,] to make [Goodwin] he was not retarded. at as bad look least three times as his estimate[,] exaggerated best Vine-
The supplied Johnson v. standard Court, having land’s. listened to “preponderance State of was the evi- taped confession at [Goodwin]’s dence.” at 540. has Dr. to be retardation, Keyes’ finds assertion unwor- not shown credible evidence thy Keyes belief. Dr. admitted only by but a claim gives unsupported facts, court, of materials for rejected by the motion and his entire source his wholly by origi- testimony litigation the record at the cho- refuted were materials by nal the evidence by trial and introduced to him provided sen [Goodwin]’s before court mo- testimony the motion below. The Clearly, counsel. was bi- clearly finding tion err in court did particular ased conclusion toward presented no documented counsel desired reach. [Goodwmfs prior 18. age evidence of retardation many Keyes Dr. conceded that of the Nor did the motion court err in his by claims inter- made new 29.15 claim of re- rejecting Goodwin’s distorted, exaggerated, view were incon- tardation. Dr. Keyes sistent untrue. possibly [Goodwin], family admitted that his Keyes’ testimony Dr. 4. incentive strong friends have a Dr. Keyes, hearing, at the motion was speak past given his his honestly about testify person that Goodwin first position current on death row. testimony was retarded. His is insuffi- any cient Goodwin to relief for to entitle
three reasons. wholly Keyes’ testimony Dr. was incon-
First, testimony results ex- his from his previous experts hired sistent with the diagnosis amination and Goodwin when before trial. His on behalf of [Goodwin] ignored years he old. He was 34 by unsupported in- conclusions were requires that re- section 565.030.6 mental any or dependent records submitted “manifested documented” tardation be only credible adduced. The evidence by the of 18. age came from the basis his conclusions testimony Second, Keyes’ found limited materials [Goodwin]’s Dr. questionable to be the motion court. The chose to expose incredible intelligence testing motion held: he administered. only testing placing intelligence Court, having heard and consid- range in the of mental re- Keyes’ testimony ered Dr. finds all of Keyes. Dr. tardation was that done necessary opinions to lack the evi- be considered His cannot support required to his conclu- dence reliable, upon any not based as it is Keyes that he sions. Dr. admitted objective on inter- evidence.... opinions much of his based Third, Keyes Dr. qualified Keyes is not a ex- Dr. is not certified or licensed as pert. psychologist psychiatrist. Keyes specifically The motion court held: IQ verbally administered a based test to a rejects Keyes’
This Court testimo- hearing impaired person, without a hear- ny expert and status as an witness. aid, it ing and offered as evidence he *13 Keyes was retarded. Dr. also failed to malingering depression or test testing The Court finds experts other did. by Keyes completed [Goodwin] Dr. to Keyes Goodwin has not shown that the motion be unreliable. Dr. had never IQ clearly Keyes’ erred in Dr. rejecting been trained to evaluate the of a testimony or claim hearing impaired Goodwin’s of retarda- individual. His in- provide any tion. did not credi- telligence testing thirty-four year of the ble evidence to the motion court to meet IQ old [Goodwin] contradicted all other by his burden to show mental retardation previously. results obtained His use of preponderance of the evidence. inappropriate the Stanford-Binet was Keyes’ testimony certainly not does dem- taking hearing [Goodwin]’s without error, especial- onstrate clear motion court impairment into consideration. His ly compared expert when with the testi- rejection of the upon Wechsler based mony regarding intelligence unsubstantiated claims [Goodwin]’s was above, presented at trial. As discussed Keyes unreasonable. Dr. denunciation ample there was evidence the record to Special of the School District records as support the trial court’s conclusion. being unreliable due to their desire to attaching avoid “stigma” of a mental presented Goodwin has no evidence that retardation level on refuted “significantly subaverage [Goodwin]is he has intellectu- by the testimony functioning records and of Dr. al with continual extensive re- Marilyn Lamb. His failure lated deficits and limitations two or to test for malingering depression adaptive more ... and behaviors manifested was below professional eighteen years and documented before requirements for a thor- age.” The motion ough Section 565.030.6. evaluation. It is unclear to this err, clearly gave court did not but instead Court whether an psycholo- educational thoughtful explanation, sup- and detailed gist qualified complete such testing. evidence, ported by the for each of its The use of the Vineland Scales to utilize findings.9 point is denied. hindsight in recalling capa- [Goodwin]’s years prior bilities seventeen inac- was B) evidence State’s of motive Keyes’ curate even own testimo- ny. Goodwin’ssecond claim states: exaggerations by [Goodwin]’s family and friends in completing the clearly deny- The motion court erred in Vineland Scales cause them to be of ing on the claim that [Good- questionable value. writ- [Goodwin]’s failing counsel was ineffective for win’s] ings, drawings, history, recent work abil- investigate present and evidence to alone, ity to Special live and the School suggestion rebut the state’s that [Good- skills adaptive District records reflect being blamed Ms. Crotts for evicted win] beyond far those described his wit- boarding from the house and killed her result, nesses. aas because this denied [Good- pursue may 9. Goodwin relief under section 552.060. above, process,
win] due effective assistance of As noted the Court’s review of counsel, subjected testimony and him to and that if proposed cruel indicates punishment, ... such had it unusual in that mo- been offered facts, alleged conclusions, hearsay, tion would have been based upon relief, speculation opinion entitled as to [Good- counsel failing thoughts this tes- unreasonably win’s] acted investi- motives. As evidence, timony gate present documentary would have been inadmissible defense, checks, witnesses, Royal provide cancelled does not Crase, Goodwin, Mary found Andy Elaine cannot be to be ineffective Silk- wood, Dickerson, for failing who to call these witnesses. Ray would have established The motion court did not err. *14 boarding evicted from house in Au- These witnesses would that have testified gust fights because of with Ms. not in August, Goodwin was evicted but Crotts, rather lived there he until No- They instead in November. would later vember, 1996; Ms. Crotts never com- have that Mrs. not testified Crotts did Crase, about Mr. plained [Goodwin] complain boarding that to the house and house; boarding the owner of Goodwin not an with did have altercation when moved from Mr. [Goodwin] in or The Mrs. Crotts October November. residence, not Crase’s he did threaten not testimony does contradict the State’s Ms. Crotts. theory evidence that held a or Goodwin grudge against Mrs. Crotts based on alter- trial, At the prosecutor talked a about during cations he lived with her the time against that grudge Goodwin had Mrs. at the house and based boarding especially upon based Crotts their interactions while only in It upon August. the altercation living Goodwin was next door. As part may actually not shows that he have been motive, the prosecutor presented this evi- in August. evicted that dence Goodwin was evicted because of clearly his altercations with Mrs. Crotts. The did not when Good- trial court err win claims that for counsel was ineffective it held it would be for speculation investigating challenging not testify or the actual these did witnesses reason time and that Goodwin moved out. grudge against not hold a Mrs. Crotts hearing motion court denied a on this on rent was based evidence October, It held: point. paid not through that he was him August, they helped evicted in or that proposed testimony cited in the move if it is true out October. Even provided 29.15 motion not have would in August, that he was not evicted Good- to the with a defense [Goodwin] violent win has offered to rebut the not evidence murder of victim. The Court’s re- prosecutor’s argument that he held a testimony view of the proposed indicates grudge Crotts of his against Mrs. because testimony that if such had been offered her that such prior altercations with upon hearsay, it would have based been validity of his impact rebuttal would as to speculation opinion [Good- penalty phase. thoughts or motives. As tes- win’s] this timony been would have inadmissible any relief Goodwin is not entitled to defense, not provide and does trial conviction, from his based this evi- upon found to be counsel cannot be ineffective dence, He killing “cite[d] for her. has not failing call these witnesses. true, facts, conclusions, which, not would he
entitle to relief’ or show [Goodwin] prejudiced by having this At [Goodwin’s] evidence on new motion. presented. Blankenship, rejected State v. that time the Court his testimo- 1, 16 ny credible. The record reflects was not entitled to a hearing, prej- witness, and no felon, that this convicted of udice exists because timing of Good- multiple including offenses child moles- win’s eviction would not provide viable tation, testified that could be [Goodwin] lolling defense to Goodwin for Mrs. Crotts. intoxicated, very person violent when point is denied. that he was scared of that he witnessed harass the C) investigate Counsel’s failure to past. victim the The Court notes that allegation that Goodwin testimony this would have inconsis- been threatened Mrs. Crotts proposed testimony tent with the Goodwin’sthird claim states: Crase, Goodwin, [Royal Mary Elaine Silkwood, Andy Ray In deny- Dickerson]. The motion court erred ing a addition the Missouri Supreme on the claim that Court [Good- counsel was ineffective for found that im- fading win’s] did not investigate present peach evidence to the witness Hall and would have *15 rebut the state’s suggestion Goodwin, that [Good- been cumulative in nature. 43 Cotts, (Mo. threatened 2001). win] Ms. while he 805, S.W.3d 813 banc smashed a rock sledgehammer, with a “In evidentiary order to be entitled to an because this denied pro- due [Goodwin] 1) hearing, facts, a movant must cite not cess, counsel, effective assistance of and conclusions, which, true, if would entitle subjected him to pun- cruel and unusual 2) relief; allegations movant to the factual ishment, ... in that the motion alleged 3) record; must not refuted be the and facts, conclusions, not that entitled complained prejudice the matters of must relief, [Goodwin] to that counsel acted Blankenship, the movant.” State v. unreasonably in failing investigate (Mo. 1992). 1, 16 banc claim This and call Ronald Krabbenhoft who was Brady was raised in the form of a violation present during sledgehammer the inci- Goodwin, appeal. on direct 43 S.W.3d dent and disputed Hall’s contention that (Mo. 2001). rejected banc The Court smashed a rock or threatened the claim. Id. The Court held: Mrs. Crotts. evidence, The prosecutor presented police Krabbenhoft’s statement to the Hall, through the of James that impeach testimony. does not Hall’s It is living while Goodwinwas next door to Mrs. questionable that Krabbenhoft and Hall Crotts, he by smashing threatened her a speaking were of the same event. Krab- rock with a sledgehammer saying: while benhoft was unsure of when he saw de- your you “this is ... keep messing head “showing by pounding fendant off’ the with me.” Goodwin claims that counsel ground sledgehammer. with the in-He was for investigating ineffective not or call- many dicated that there were social ing testify Ronald Krabbenhoft gatherings boardinghouse held at the Goodwin made no such threat. The mo- sledgehammer where the was accessible tion court dismissed this claim without a he, Krabbenhoft, and was absent. hearing. It held: Krabbenhoft added that he owned the sledgehammer, always kept
This witness which presented was for this was hearing yard, Court’s consideration at the and of the held the the residents played pathology it claims that the re- boardinghouse with occasional- ports indicate that Mrs. Crotts died from ly- the He her fall down stairs. claims This raised as part Id. was Goodwin’s that he reports suggest do beat her prior appeal relitigated, and cannot be extensively shoving before her down theory, during even on a different a post- stairs. claims Dr. Bennett would conviction proceeding. Mallett 1) many have that: of Mrs. testified injuries probably more Crotts’ were point is denied. in- steps, caused from the fall down the brain, 2) bruising cluding the to the D) investigate failure to Counsel’s 3) injuries, victim not die head did from medical evidence hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardio- fourth claim states: death, vascular disease caused Mrs. Crotts’ 4) microscopic examination would deny- court erred motion coronary age have indicated the of her ing, claim hearing, [Goodwin’s] without thrombus, infarction, artery heart failing ineffective brain bruises. evidence, the medical investigate consult pathologist, with and call forensic such motion denied Bennett, as Dr. Thomas because this held:
denied process, due effective pleading [Goodwin’s] does contest counsel, subjected assistance of him issue found the medical ultimate ... punishment, cruel and unusual examiner, Dr. Mis- Mary Case facts, pled motion not conclu- Court, Supreme souri “defendant’s con- *16 sions that entitled relief: [Goodwin] Mrs. proximately duct caused Crotts unreasonably that counsel acted in fail- death, precise cause of and the death ing investigate present and evidence bearing has no on his mental state at the reports concerning pathology the and Goodwin, striking time of his victim.” that physical evidence to show Mrs. (Mo. 2001). banc As S.W.3d injuries a Crotts’ were consistent with injuries it that was clear the victim’s fall she down the stairs and that was not by of were caused the deliberate acts subjected repeated and excessive [Goodwin], by beating her or whether abuse, necessary physical finding stairs, pushing her down the [Goodwin] the of aggravating depravi- circumstance have trial prejudiced by could not been mind, ty and rebut the State’s failure to evi- present counsel’s suggestion that beat her over [Goodwin] dence. therefore, body and her entire deliberat- The not err motion did ed. Dr. when it denied Goodwin a on testimony. prosecutor presented that Bennett’s Dr. Bennett’s testi- evidence and, then, jury mony not have refuted the Goodwin beat Mrs. Crotts would by killed Mrs. Crotts finding shoved He that Goodwin her down basement stairs. stairs, her, shoving process. beating of her in the her down the eight broke ribs Crotts, her striking sledgeham- struck in the and head with Goodwin then Mrs. head, only reapportioned mer. sledgehammer leaving with a two It would have done impressions expert damage in her skull. The at amounts each inju- head Goodwin’s actions and confirmed that she testified she died from problems. contributing had health ries. some witnesses, The issue before the court gate present Patty Hig- was delibera- and Lamb, Welch, tion. Dr. Bennett’s not gins, Marilyn Mary Mary does Goodwin, Goodwin, undercut the State’s evidence that Mary Good- Elaine Joseph Mifflin, win beat Mrs. hit Goodwin, Crotts and her with a Kathleen Brenda sledgehammer. testimony only reap- Thomas, Goodwin, Goodwin, His Pat Jim portions Meiners, the actual Dickerson, cause of death from the Ray Andy and Silk- 1) beating shoving. wood, to the This does not who would have testified: theory undercut the State’s of deliberation capable was not of detailed [Goodwin] depravity. deficits, to his planning due intellectual inability consequences to foresee any Goodwin is not entitled to relief 2) nature; impulsive [Goodwin] was from upon his conviction based Dr. Ben confused, easily got lost and wandered testimony. nett’s Goodwin has not “cite[d] into strangers’ houses when he was a facts, conclusions, which, true, if would 3) child; legitimate had entitle to relief'’ or show he road, for walking Hanley reasons on State v. Blankenship, prejudiced. since he lived in neighborhood 1,16 Even it is did not drive a car. actually true that Goodwin killed Mrs. trial, prosecutor argued, at that Good- shoving Crotts her down the stairs plenty win had of time in stinking instead of Mrs. Crotts’ sledge her head with a hammer, spent home to deliberate and that he had he is not any entitled to relief year planning half this murder. from his conviction for deliberately killing During trial, guilt phase of his Good- her. Goodwin was not entitled to a hear Schultz, record, win called who testified that ing because the which includes nature, could appreciate Goodwin’s confession and Mrs. Crotts’ in quality, wrongfulness juries, of his conduct or supports jury’s finding of de deliberate. pravity, regardless injuries of which of her
actually point caused her death. This is, essentially, Goodwin’s claim denied. presenting counsel was ineffective for not more evidence to show that Goodwin
E) investigate Counsel’s failure to capacity lacked the to deliberate. The mo- Goodwin’s mental state tion court denied this claim a without hear- Goodwin’sfifth ing. claim states: It stated: The motion court in deny- erred proposed [T]he Court’s review of the ing hearing a on testimony the claim that if [Good- indicates that such testimo- failing ny win’s] was ineffective for it had been offered would have been investigate to present hearsay, and evidence to upon speculation based and rebut the suggestion state’s that opinion thoughts [Good- as to or [Goodwin’s] planned to kill Mrs. testimony win] Crotts and As this motives. would have on killing, deliberated because this provide been inadmissible and does not defense, denied process, [Goodwin] due trial effective a counsel cannot be found counsel, right assistance of present failing a to be ineffective for to call these defense, subjected addition, and him to cruel and In witnesses. ex- [Goodwin’s] punishment, unusual ... perts concerning that the mo- at trial testified his facts, conclusions, alleged tion not capabilities mental and his abilities to relief, entitled present [Goodwin] that counsel form the intent. Much of what unreasonably acted in failing suggests to investi- would have been by hours shown the additional witnesses of- for eleven and a half trial. before points fered in these is cumulative to conducted personality testing, compe- She assessments, tests, intelligence evidence adduced at and at times tency conflicting tests, tests, with the mental health evi- malingering psy- achievement by experts. tests, dence offered his personal history. chological and and Schultz reviewed testified about Special school records from Goodwin’s proposed The of [Goodwin’s] District. Dr. School Schultz discussed upon mother and sister is based hear- hearing impairment, his em- Goodwin’s say, personal opinion, speculation, ployment history, relationship his with his which would have been ruled irrelevant murder, family, his and the account of subject had it been at trial. offered testing. of his Dr. Schultz conclud- results walking of the area was [Goodwin’s] major ed that Goodwin suffered from de- by including discussed several witnesses disorder, personality pression, borderline expert. References functioning, learning intellectual disor- walking towards home were offered presented Dr. Schultz ar- ders. witnesses as an basis to serve additional responsible gument he was not for his [Good- of their identification him. As not conduct because he could deliberate proposed testimony have win’s] would consequences actions. foresee provide been inadmissible does not defense, found trial counsel cannot be The witnesses above would have testi failing ineffective for to call these wit- to the fied same issue about which nesses. purpose of their testified. The Schultz testimonies would have been to show Goodwin was not entitled to a that Goodwin could deliberate testimony. on this “In order to be entitled that it was coincidental he had been evidentiary hearing, to an must movant 1) facts, conclusions, true, Hanley on Their which, seen road. testimonies cite 2) cumulative, have and Good relief; would been entitle the fac- would movant provides no additional facts win allegations tual must not be refuted exculpate record; 3) would Goodwin. Counsel was complained the matters putting not “ineffective for not on cumu v. prejudice must the movant.” State these (Mo. lative evidence” from other witnesses. 1, Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d banc Skil licorn allegations factual Good- 2000), denied, 678, 683 cert. win’s 29.15 motion were that Goodwin 121 S.Ct. 531 U.S. state required could not form the mental (2000). point L.Ed.2d 538 is denied. confused, easily he could not because *18 and, child, a had consequences, foresee as F) Counsel’s inconsistent theories strangers’ wandered into houses. sixth claim states: Goodwin’s clearly The motion court did not err. deny- not to The motion erred in
These witnesses could have testified claims that thinking ing hearing at the time of a on [Goodwin’s] what Good-winwas ade- failing motion cor- counsel was ineffective to the murder. The court also and quately investigate background rectly present- held that this evidence was in Dr. in inconsistent theories through expert presenting at trial. ed easily penalty phases, and guilt that Goodwin was because Schultz testified process, conse- due effective [Goodwin] confused and could foresee denied counsel, him subjected assistance of quences. Dr. Schultz evaluated punishment, investigated thorough to cruel and unusual ... in each a social his- facts, pled tory the motion not conclu- These doctors inter- [Goodwin]. of relief; many sions that entitled to viewed of the witnesses called at [Goodwin] in unreasonably evidentiary hearing that counsel acted in fail- this matter. ing to investigate provide presented their ex- The voluminous records at perts all background evidentiary hearing with relevant mate- were reviewed rial and psychologist by experts prior counsel called a Dr. these to trial. The trial in guilt phase Schultz who claimed record refutes claim that the [Goodwin’s] suffered from a mental dis- of trial in investigation [Goodwin] extent counsel’s ease and defect and could not appreciate this case was unreasonable.... actions, wrongfulness of his and then evidentiary “In order to be entitled to an penalty phase called Dr. Wetzel who 1) facts, hearing, a movant must cite disagreed, saying had no conclusions, which, true, would entitle mental disease or ap- defect and could 2) relief; allegations movant to the factual preciate that his actions wrong. were 3) record; by must not be refuted
The motion court complained denied this claim without the matters of must prejudice a hearing. Blankenship, the movant.” State v. It held: 1,16
This thoroughly Court has reviewed re- ports by Rosalyn filed Dr. Schultz and 1. Inconsistent theories Dr. Richard Wetzel well as as their ex- Goodwin conceded that he killed testimony. tensive trial These records During guilt phase, Mrs. Crotts. he relied reflect a diagnosis consistent of [Good- on a defense of not guilty reason depression only with a slight win] mental disease or defect. Dr. tes Schultz disagreement between the witnesses as defect, tified as a result of this Good severity depression. win coolly was not able to reflect or delib Schultz was of the opinion the de- erate. After Goodwin was convicted and pression degree was to such a during penalty phase, Dr. testified Wetzel was not responsible for his that, although Goodwin could control his agreed actions. Dr. Wetzel that [Good- behavior, ability to conform his conduct major depression win] suffered from but substantially impaired, the law was responsible found him for his actions. mitigating which should be considered mitigation Wetzel was called to offer factor. prove that because of his condition, ability to conform [Goodwin’s] not a case of arguing is “ requirements his conduct to the of the sorry ‘he didn’t it’ do defense and ‘he is impaired. law was upon Based Dr. Wet- it’ im- mitigation,” he did which would be testimony, zel’s the Court submitted sev- Nixon, permissible. Florida v. 543 U.S. eral in mitigation punishment. factors 175,191-92,125 551,160 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 565 (2004) (internal omitted). allegation [Goodwin’s] that counsel failed citations Good- investigate provide complete win conceded the first that he history social change expert refuted the record. killed Mrs. Crotts. *19 Both Dr. Schultz and Dr. testimony simply Wetzel indicat- after conviction was ed in reports testimony jury their and an retooling argument. of his had just rejected extensive list of argument materials and witnesses that he they had considered. From responsible their re- was not for the murder be- ports testimony they and it is clear that cause of his mental state. It was not error 40 that, facts, conclusions, argue though
for to then not that entitled him even relief; jury specifically, the found that his mental state was that Missouri’s him, in sufficient to excuse it should still method execution i! flawed that it mitigate unnecessary consider his mental state to causes as pain evidenced State, punishment. v. 80 Middleton 11 that other executions encountered (Mo. 2002). S.W.3d banc prolonged and in problems resulted and any has that he unnecessary pain not shown is entitled problems and the will Dr. argument relief or because counsel’s reoccur Missouri likely since the statute mitigation. for This Wetzel’s to the confers unlimited discretion De- point proce- is denied. the partment Corrections and protocols include dures and do not safe- investigate
2. Failure to manner in which guards regarding the occur, fail to executions should establish argues experts qualifications expertise minimum and for people and should have consulted more executions, personnel conducting and do motion that “it is material. The court held provide and standards criteria experts] investigated clear that [the each injection lethal but use procedures, thorough history social of [Goodwin].” drugs unnecessary pain that cause and provided any Goodwin has not new facts suffering; were not allegations re- that should have been and that considered futed the record.... Additionally, him to would entitle relief. record refutes Goodwin’s claim this claim without The motion denied to investigate counsel failed the defenses hearing. It stated: “The identical claim in the used at both trials. As discussed rejected without an was considered and previous many point, Schultz consulted State, evidentiary in Morrow v. much evidence.
witnesses considered 2000).” (Mo. 819, 828 banc also “an Wetzel considered extensive rejected recently an Court considered list of materials and witnesses.” State, claim in v. Worthington identical
“Courts will not draw factual inferences (Mo. 2005). point is S.W.3d 566 banc in Rule from 29.15 motion implications denied. bare or from for relief.” prayer conclusions H) argument ngo
Ri Closing Goodwin has not shown claim states: Goodwin’sfinal consid experts had these consulted or deny- plainly The motion court erred evidence, be any ered additional he would the rec- ing postconviction relief because for killing entitled to relief Mrs. Crotts. prosecutor’s closing ord shows This point is denied. rights to argument violated [Goodwin’s] G) injection Lethal from self-incrimi- process, due be free nation, prohibition a fair trial and claim Goodwin’sseventh states: punishment, cruel and unusual against deny- The motion court erred prosecutor in the argued ... in that the hearing on the that lethal ing a claim penalty phase closing that: unconstitutional, injection applied Missouri, this was the worst cases in ruling denied A. one of because that therefore, Louis process County, St. rights to due pun- prosecutor from cruel unusual had decided be free death; alleged deserved .... in that motion ishment
41
(Mo.
2001).
urged jurors
give
B.
Simply put,
death to send a 582
banc
there is
message
community
every
to the
probability
and to
no reasonable
that had
elderly
protect
single thing
complains
from similar at-
about been
tacks;
otherwise,
proceeding
“the result of the
been different.”
v.
would have
Williams
death;
jurors
duty
C.
had a
give
362, 391,
1495,
Taylor, 529 U.S.
120 S.Ct.
jurors’ family,
D.
Mends and cowork-
(2000) (internal
he was for what he had Crotts, der. He forced Joan woman sixties, her him. perform oral sex on F. defense counsel had fabricated the Then he threw her down her basement by paying
defense Dr. Schultz for a stairs, sledge- hit her in the head awith opinion. favorable hammer, finger- and left her to die. His scene, prints were found at the and Mrs. This claim has never been raised before clothing. Crotts’ blood was found on his appeal, either in direct or in the amended scene, bootprints left at the relief, post-conviction motion for during backyard. aid was found in the post-conviction proceeding. Goodwin’s confession the de- corroborated appeal is an post-conviction [T]his tails of the crime. proceeding. Our standard of review here post-conviction is whether the attorneys presented Goodwin’s trial “clearly erred” in denying relief in the substantial amount of evidence about post-conviction proceeding. Since the witnesses, Expert mental deficiencies. issue was never post-con- raised behalf, called on Goodwin’s established proceeding, court, viction error intelligence, that he was of borderline but plain, otherwise, clear or is not discerni- mentally that he was not retarded. It was ble. argued mentally that Goodwin was not ca- State, (Mo. 887, White 939 S.W.2d 904 pable committing first-degree murder 1997). banc This claim was not properly punishment mitigat- and that his should be presented to the motion court is de- strategy; ed. This was a it reasonable nied. just did not work. all of the When evidence is viewed to-
VI) No motion court error gether, question no there is that Goodwin’s rejects This Court all of Goodwin’s conviction and sentence resulted from the points. question whether, “The when all presented jury evidence to the and not as mitigation together, evidence is added any a result of of the claims of error that is there a reasonable probability that the Goodwin asserts here. outcome would have been different?” State, 292, Hutchison v. 150 S.W.3d 306 findings pre The motion court’s are (Mo. 2004). State, banc The defendant “must sumed be correct. Black v. that, (Mo. 49, show but for his counsels’ ineffective S.W.3d banc The mo performance, there is a proba- “clearly making reasonable tion court did not [err] bility jury that the would have findings concluded its of fact and conclusions of law” balancing aggravating after and miti- regarding the claims raised Goodwin. gating circumstances, State, death was not war- Skillicorn v. 2000), denied,
ranted.” Rousan v. cert. 531 U.S. *21 42 (Mo. 2001). win,
1039,
630,
In
121 S.Ct.
the
retardation
offender’s
LIMBAUGH,
WHITE,
well,
RUSSELL
experts
as
of trial
that
the
JJ., concur.
the
This Court
offender was
retarded.
in
that this
is to be
dispute
Johnson held
WOLFF, C.J.,
separate
opin-
dissents
penalty
resolved in
trial —and
phase
a new
ion filed.
by
judge
the motion court
—where
JJ.,
TEITELMAN,
STITH
concur
dispute
is
the ulti
genuine
there
a
as to
WOLFF,
opinion
of
C.J.
the
mate fact of whether
offender is re
tarded.
at 541.
Good
Unless
WOLFF,
Justice,
A.
Chief
MICHAEL
trial,
jury
a
a
right
jury
win
waives
dissenting.
Const,
should determine this issue. Mo.
hold
made
I would
that
a sub-
I,
18(a);
565.006,
art.
sec.
sec.
RSMo 2000.
missible case for
retardation such
mental
jury
that he is
a
entitled to
on
un-
Usually post-conviction proceeding
a
notes,
opinion
As the
At
principal
issue.
der
of
question
Rule 29.15 involves the
Virginia,
v.
kins
536 U.S.
S.Ct.
as-
whether the offender received effective
(2002),
it
The the motion court is opined who that Goodwinwas not retarded that, believed, whether there is evidence any adaptive functioning conducted tests. penalty would cause the finder of fact in a Dr. Keyes, only expert who was the phase trial to find that Goodwin is mental- retarded, testify that Goodwin was was ly retarded. Id. at 541. Put way, another also apparently only expert the the review question is whether Goodwin can make skills, adaptive an part essential submissible case of mental retardation. of a though diagnosis. Even mental retardation may significant there be evi- claim, dence refute that as there inwas Keyes’ Dr. professional opinion is that Johnson, the issues of credibility are for range Goodwin is “within the mild of men- jury, not for the motion court. The retardation, probably tal smack in the mid- evidence Goodwin in support submitted I.Q. sixty-three, dle of it [with an] around his Rule 29.15 claim meets this standard. sixty-five.” Although Keyes is the principal opinion asserts that Good- professional diagnose first with win not provide did documented evidence retardation, mental he believes that that he age was retarded before 18. The experts other did not consider Goodwin’s presented evidence at the Rule 29.15 hear- poor adaptive they skills because were ing shows otherwise. Although, as de- considering a mental diagnosis. retardation tailed in the principal opinion, there was statute, 565.030.6, The Missouri section ample evidence that Goodwin was not re- I.Q. Supp.2004, RSMo does not have an tarded, enough there was also evidence I.Q. cut-off any component or refer to that he was retarded to make a submissi- the definition of “mental retardation.” ble case. however, Experts, I.Q. use various tests as Goodwin’s main witness at the Rule part of the assessment of mental retarda- 29.15 hearing, where the sole issue was that, experts agreed tion. The at trial retardation, mental was Dr. Keyes, Denis error, I.Q. the five-point margin with an educational psychologist. Keyes scores of to 75 could up be considered specializes in mental retardation and death mentally range. within the retarded issues, penalty and his research was cited Goodwin had verbal and total scores within Supreme Court in Atkins. 536 U.S. range. 20,122 at 316 n. S.Ct. 2242. Johnson, noted, 535, As presented expert cases, In mentally retarded, point. that he is similar and on both there I.Q. with at trial that adaptive scores of 67-74 and was evidence the defendant low skills score, during I.Q. mentally A childhood. was not retarded. Johnson’s ex- when teenager, perts Goodwin was a was within testified that he in the “low mentally range, average” range. retarded and he “dull normal” Id. at ation an expert, credibility expert 538-39. who believed John- of the wit- One retarded, ness, mentally jury, son was was known to is for not the motion court. See, to testify. the defense but was not called e.g., Georgescu Corp., v. K Mart Likewise, at Id. evidence Goodwin’s S.W.2d mixed; experts
trial was tes- although credibility principal opinion recognizes *23 retarded, mentally tified he was the normally jury is for but here thinks sup- there was that could some evidence judge expert found the so unwor- the cases, a that he In both port finding was. thy of that it make an excep- belief could contrary there was considerable evidence made, not be Exceptions tion. should or court, available to the motion so “rea- exception becoming we run the risk of the could to sonable minds differ as movant’s the rule. mental abilities.” 102 at 540. opinion principal The notes that Dr. The in a role of the motion court case Keyes’ functioning adaptive testimony is as not to the such this is make factual it was inappropriate because conducted itself, judge as determination the did years when over 30 old. Goodwin was dispute case. there this is a real as Where However, specifically the were interviews evidence, remedy the proper is designed to elicit information about Good- the judgment vacate and set the matter for as holding princi- win child. This a as penalty phase, a new trial in the pal opinion amounts to a determination did in at 541. Court Johnson. Id. The that a can never be found to be person job motion court in this perceived case its necessary adaptive testing if the retarded not Goodwin is determining whether or not done before and documentation were However, mentally once retarded. rea- age documentation some a is threshold of submissible case estab- interpreta- be son cannot retrieved. lished, that determination is to be made in not satisfy tion of the statute does trial, by jury, new a penalty phase a unless forth in Atkins constitutional standard set jury a is waived. mentally it could retarded because allow The principal opinion credits motion person to executed. be Keyes’ Dr. court’s determination that testi- only question The for the motion court mony necessary evidence re- “laek[ed] evidentiary hearing is at a Rule 29.15 quired support conclusions.” is, effect, whether there submissible rejected Keyes as an
motion court mentally movant case that the is retarded. The motion court expert and as witness. case, presents such and he Dr. Keyes’ found of Goodwin to be testing phase jury penalty should receive a new he not a unreliable because licensed issue. trial on that he psychologist and because relied on provided by adaptive skills information family. the mo- that caused considerations reject Keyes’ testimony
tion expert an wit- negate
do not his status as
ness, expert make testimo- they nor do All of the factors recited
ny inadmissible. go weight of the
by the motion court to the admissibility.
testimony, not to its Resolu- evidence, and
tion of in the evalu- disputes