Dotson v. State

673 S.W.3d 204

Jessie DOTSON

v.STATE of Tennessee

No. W2019-01059-SC-R11-PD

Supreme Court of Tennessee, AT JACKSON.

April 5, 2023 Session

FILED July 7, 2023

Justyna Scalpone, Post-Conviction Defender; and Kelly A. Gleason and Andrew L. Harris, Assistant Post-Conviction Defenders, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jessie Dotson.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrée Sophia Blumstein, Solicitor General; Courtney N. Orr, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Stephen Jones, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

David R. Esquivel and Michael C. Tackeff, Nashville, Tennessee, for Amici Curiae, Former Access to Justice Commission Chairs, Tennessee Innocence Project, Choosing Justice Initiative, and Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Sharon G. Lee, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roger A. Page, C.J., and Holly Kirby and Sarah K. Campbell, JJ., joined. Jeffrey S. Bivins, J., not participating.¹

Sharon G. Lee, J.

This appeal involves a capital post-conviction petitioner's expert funding requests under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13. A jury convicted the Petitioner, Jessie Dotson, of six counts of premeditated first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. This Court affirmed the jury's verdict. The Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging several grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. He requested funds under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13 to hire expert witnesses to assist in establishing his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court authorized the funds, but the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the Chief Justice denied approval for some of the Petitioner's requested experts. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the ruling without deciding the Petitioner's Rule 13 constitutional challenges. We granted review to consider the Petitioner's constitutional issues regarding Rule 13. We hold the provisions of Rule 13 are constitutional as applied; the Petitioner was not unconstitutionally denied appellate review of the denial of his request for expert funds; and the Petitioner was not deprived of a full and fair post-conviction hearing due to the denial of expert funds.

This appeal focuses on Rule 13 and the administration of funds appropriated by the General Assembly for the provision of expert, investigative, or other similar services for indigent post-conviction petitioners in capital cases. Rule 13 establishes the procedures indigent defendants must use to request funds for expert services in the trial court and for the AOC Director and the Chief Justice's administrative review of the trial court's authorization of funds. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-14-207(b) (2012); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13.

The Petitioner requested funds under Rule 13 to hire expert witnesses to assist in his post-conviction proceedings. In the four instances at issue here, the post-conviction court authorized the funds, but the AOC Director and the Chief Justice either reduced the requested amount or denied approval of the funds. The Petitioner proceeded under protest to the post-conviction evidentiary hearing without the assistance of these witnesses. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

We granted the Petitioner's application for permission to appeal under Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure to consider these issues: whether the provisions of Rule 13 for prior approval review are unconstitutional, as applied; whether the Petitioner has been unconstitutionally denied appellate review of the denial of expert funds; and whether the Petitioner has been deprived of his statutory right to a full and fair post-conviction hearing due to the denial of expert funds.²

These issues present questions of law, which we review de novo with no presumption of correctness. State v. McCoy , 459 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tenn. 2014) (citing Waters v. Farr , 291 S.W.3d 873, 882 (Tenn. 2009) ); Pratcher v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps. , 407 S.W.3d 727, 734 (Tenn. 2013). We interpret Supreme Court Rules using the same rules of construction as when we interpret statutes. Thomas v. Oldfield , 279 S.W.3d 259, 261 (Tenn. 2009) ("In construing the rules of this Court, ... our goal is to ascertain and give effect to this Court's intent in adopting its rules."). As the promulgator of Rule 13, this Court "is the rule's primary arbiter." In re Gant , 937 S.W.2d 842, 846 (Tenn. 1996).

Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13

The Tennessee General Assembly annually appropriates a finite and limited amount of funds for indigent litigants in capital cases. Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-14-207(b) provides for investigative or expert services for indigent defendants:

(b) In capital cases where the defendant has been found to be indigent by the court of record having jurisdiction of the case, the court in an ex parte hearing may, in its discretion, determine that investigative or expert services or other similar services are necessary to ensure that the constitutional rights of the defendant are properly protected. If that determination is made, the court may grant prior authorization for these necessary services in a reasonable amount to be determined by the court. The authorization shall be evidenced by a signed order of the court. The order shall provide for the reimbursement of reasonable and necessary expenses by the administrative director of the courts as authorized by this part and rules promulgated thereunder by the supreme court.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-14-207(b). This Court adopted Rule 13 as the procedural framework for administration of these funds and later amended Rule 13 to include provisions for capital post-conviction cases.³ Rule 13, section 5 provides:

Section 5. Experts, investigators, and other support services.

(a)(1) In the trial and direct appeal of all criminal cases in which the defendant is entitled to appointed counsel and in the trial and appeals of post-conviction proceedings in capital cases involving indigent petitioners, the court, in an ex parte hearing, may in its discretion determine that investigative or expert services or other similar services are necessary to ensure that the constitutional rights of the defendant are properly protected. If such determination is made, the court may grant prior authorization for these necessary services in a reasonable amount to be determined by the court. The authorization shall be evidenced by a signed order of the court. The order shall provide for the payment or reimbursement of reasonable and necessary expenses by the director. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-14-207(b) ; State v. Barnett , 909 S.W.2d 423 (Tenn. 1995) ; Owens v. State , 908 S.W.2d 923 (Tenn. 1995).

....

(b)(1) Every effort shall be made to obtain the services of a person or entity whose primary office of business is within 150 miles of the court where the case is pending. If the person or entity proposed to provide the service is not located within the 150-mile radius, the motion shall explain the efforts made to obtain the services of a provider within the 150-mile radius.

(2) Any motion seeking funding for expert or similar services shall itemize:

(A) the nature of the services requested;

(B) the name, address, qualifications, and licensure status, as evidenced by a curriculum vitae or resume, of the person or entity proposed to provide the services;

(C) the means, date, time, and location at which the services are to be provided; and

(D) a statement of the itemized costs of the services, including the hourly rate, and the amount of any expected additional or incidental costs.

(3) Any motion seeking funding for investigative or other similar services shall itemize:

(A) the type of investigation to be conducted;

(B) the specific facts that suggest the investigation likely will result in admissible evidence;

(C) an itemized list of anticipated expenses for the investigation;

(D) the name and address of the person or entity proposed to provide the services; and

(E) a statement indicating whether the person satisfies the licensure requirement of this rule.

(4) If a motion satisfies these threshold requirements, the trial court must conduct an ex parte hearing on the motion and determine if the requested services are necessary to ensure the protection of the defendant's constitutional rights.

(c)(1) Funding shall be authorized only if, after conducting a hearing on the motion, the court determines that there is a particularized need for the requested services and that the hourly rate charged for the services is reasonable in that it is comparable to rates charged for similar services.

....

(3) Particularized need in the context of capital post-conviction proceedings is established when a petitioner shows, by reference to the particular facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case, that the services are necessary to establish a ground for post-conviction relief and that the petitioner will be unable to establish that ground for post-conviction relief by other available evidence. SeeOwens , 908 S.W.2d at 928.

(4) Particularized need cannot be established and funding requests should be denied where the motion contains only:

(A) undeveloped or conclusory assertions that such services would be beneficial;

(B) assertions establishing only the mere hope or suspicion that favorable evidence may be obtained;

(C) information indicating that the requested services relate to factual issues or matters within the province and understanding of the jury; or

(D) information indicating that the requested services fall within the capability and expertise of appointed counsel.

See, e.g. , Barnett , 909 S.W.2d at 430 ; Caldwell v. Mississippi , 472 U.S. 320, 323 n.1 [105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231] (1985) ; State v. Abraham , 451 S.E.2d 131, 149 (1994).

(d)(1) The

...