Jackson v. Hooper

1

TROY MICHAEL JACKSON v. TIMOTHY HOOPER, WARDEN

Civil Action No. 22-1003

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

January 17, 2023

SECTION “I” (1)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JANIS VAN MEERVELD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Troy Michael Jackson, a Louisiana state prisoner, filed the instant federal application seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the following reasons it is recommended that the application be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

On March 11, 2016, petitioner was convicted under Louisiana law of first degree murder (Count 1), obstruction of justice by tampering with evidence (Count 2), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count 3).^[1] On April 14 2016, he was sentenced as follows: life without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence on Count 1; five years on Count 2; and twenty-five years without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence on Count 3. It was ordered that those sentences be served concurrently.^[2]

On October 12, 2017, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal held that two patent errors had been committed in the case. First, the Court of Appeal found:

We note that defendant moved for, and was granted, the appointment of a sanity commission. Although two doctors' reports appear in the record, the trial court does not appear to have conducted a contradictory hearing or made a ruling on defendant's capacity to proceed to trial.

As a general matter, La. Code Crim. P. art. 642 allows “[t]he defendant's mental incapacity to proceed [to] be raised at any time by the defense, the district attorney, or the court.” The article additionally requires that “[w]hen the question of the defendant's mental incapacity to proceed is raised, there shall be no further steps in the criminal prosecution ... until the defendant is found to have the mental capacity to proceed.” La. Code Crim. P. art. 642. Next, La. Code Crim. P. art. 643 provides, in pertinent part, “[t]he court shall order a mental examination of the defendant when it has reasonable ground to doubt the defendant's mental capacity to proceed.” Last, if a defendant's mental incapacity has been properly raised, the proceedings can only continue after the court holds a contradictory hearing and decides the issue of the defendant's mental capacity to proceed. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 647; State ex rel. Seals v. State, 2000-2738 (La. 10/25/02), 831 So.2d 828, 832-33.

Questions regarding a defendant's capacity must be deemed by the court to be bona fide and in good faith before a court will consider if there are “reasonable grounds” to doubt capacity. Where there is a bona fide question raised regarding a defendant's capacity, the failure to observe procedures to protect a defendant's right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial. Seals, 831 So.2d at 833. At this point, the failure to resolve the issue of a defendant's capacity to proceed may result in nullification of the conviction and sentence under State v. Nomey, 613 So.2d 157, 161-62 (La. 1993), or a nunc pro tunc hearing to determine competency retrospectively under State v. Snyder, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/99), 750 So.2d 832. Seals, 831 So.2d at 833.

In certain instances, a nunc pro tunc hearing on the issue of competency is appropriate “if a meaningful inquiry into the defendant's competency” may still be had. In such cases, the trial court is again vested with the discretion of making this decision as it “is in the best position” to do so. This determination must be decided on a case-by-case basis, under the guidance of Nomey, Snyder, and their progeny. The state bears the burden in the nunc pro tunc hearing to provide sufficient evidence for the court to make a rational decision. Seals, 831 So.2d at 833.

Because there is no indication in the record that the trial court held a contradictory hearing following its receipt of the physicians' reports in the record, we conditionally affirm defendant's convictions on counts one, two, and three and remand to the trial court for the purpose of determining whether a nunc pro tunc competency hearing may be possible. If the trial court believes that it is still possible to determine defendant's competency at the time of the trial on the charges, the trial court is directed to hold an evidentiary hearing and make a competency ruling. If defendant was competent, no new trial is required. If defendant is found to have been incompetent at the time of trial, or if the inquiry into competency is found to be impossible, he is entitled to a new trial. Defendant's right to appeal an adverse ruling is reserved. See Snyder, 750 So.2d at 855-56 & 863; State v. Mathews, 2000-2115 (La.App. 1st Cir. 9/28/01), 809 So.2d 1002, 1016, writs denied, 2001-2873 (La. 9/13/02), 824 So.2d 1191, 2001-2907 (La. 10/14/02), 827 So.2d 412.^[3]

Second, the Court of Appeal found:

We also note patent sentencing error in this case. When a convicted felon is found guilty of possessing a firearm in violation of the provisions of La. R.S. 14:95.1, the sentence shall be imprisonment at hard labor for not less than ten nor more than twenty years without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence and a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars. La. R.S. 14:95.1(B). In imposing the sentence on count three, the trial court sentenced defendant to twenty-five years at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence and failed to impose any fine. This sentence is illegally excessive in its term and illegally lenient in its failure to include the mandatory fine. See La. R.S. 14:95.1(B). An illegal sentence may be corrected at any time by the court that imposed the sentence or by an appellate court on review. La. Code Crim. P. art. 882(A). When the amendment of a defendant's sentence entails more than a ministerial correction of a sentencing error, however, the decision in State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La. 11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, 801-02, does not sanction sua sponte correction by the court of appeal on the defendant's appeal of his conviction and sentence. See State v. Haynes, 2004-1893 (La. 12/10/04), 889 So.2d 224 (per curiam). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed on count three and, in the event the defendant is found to have been competent at the time of trial, instruct the trial court to sentence him on that count in accordance with law.^[4]

In summary: the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal conditionally affirmed petitioner's convictions on all three counts, conditionally affirmed his sentences on Counts 1 and 2, and vacated his sentence on Count 3. Petitioner challenged that judgment by filing a related directreview writ application with the Louisiana Supreme Court, but that writ application was denied on May 25, 2018.^[5]

In the meantime, on February 14, 2018, the state district court had complied with the Court of Appeal's judgment. The district court first found that a nunc pro tunc competency determination was possible and that petitioner had been competent to stand trial, holding:

This case was originally a Division “C” (Judge Timothy Ellender) case. Prior to the end of the 2014 year Judge Ellender retired, and the assistant district attorney prosecuting this case, Juan Pickett, was elected as district judge for Division “C.”

On February 18, 2015, Judge Juan Pickett recused himself from handling this case. It was then randomly allotted to Division “B,” Judge John Walker. Different defense counsel with the public defender's office, Kathyrn [sic] Lirette, was assigned as defense counsel. A different prosecutor, Dennis Elfert, was also assigned to handle the prosecution. Thus, in Division “B” defendant's case had a different judge, prosecutor, and defense counsel.

Trial was held March 8-11, 2016. Neither the Court, State, or defense counsel was aware that a ruling on the sanity commission had not been made despite detailed findings of Dr. Grove and Dr. Vega as set forth in their reports.

The minutes reflect that the original plea of the defendant was “NOT GUILTY” (April 8, 2013; June 10, 2013). On March 23, 2015, defendant appeared in Division “B” after the recusal of Judge Pickett and reallotment to Division “B.” On March 23, 2015, defendant entered a “NOT GUILTY” plea. This case was tried to a jury March 8-11, 2016.

The original request for a sanity commission was filed May 21, 2014 in Division “C.” The July 10, 2014 report of Dr. George Grove was filed in the record on July 31, 2014. The July 25, 2014 report of Dr. Melonie [sic] Vega was filed in the record on August 7, 2014.

A review of the above reports shows that the medical experts conducted a thorough and detailed examination of the defendant according to the “Bennett” criteria. They reached the same conclusions that defendant was competent, not suffering from a mental disease or defect, and had a rational and factual understanding of the charges and their seriousness. He was also found to have the ability to assist counsel. There was no issue of competency of the defendant at the time of the trial.

It appears that an oversight occurred in the failure of Division “C” to render a ruling on the defendant's competency in light of the clear findings of the sanity commission doctors who agreed that defendant was competent and able to assist counsel.

At no time after the filling [sic] of the May 21, 2014 request for a sanity commission were any issues raised concerning the competency of the defendant or his ability to assist his counsel there [sic] was no plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

During the time this case was pending in Division “B,” the Court observed the defendant, his

...