State v. Smith

367 Wis.2d 483

878 N.W.2d 135

2016 WI 23

STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent–Petitioner,

v.Jimmie Lee SMITH, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 2013AP1228–CR.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Argued Oct. 6, 2015.

Decided April 7, 2016.

For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner, the cause was argued by Christine A. Remington, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was Brad D. Schimel.

For the defendant-appellant, there was a brief by John T. Wasielewski, and Wasielewski & Erickson, Milwaukee, and oral argument by John T. Wasielewski.

PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, Chief Justice.

¶ 1 We review a published decision of the court of appeals¹ THAT REVERSED THE MIlwaukee county circUit court's² denial of defendant Jimmie Lee Smith's (Smith) postconviction motion to vacate the judgment of conviction.

¶ 2 Smith was convicted of second-degree sexual assault, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.225(2)(a)(2013–14),³ and sentenced to 25 years of initial confinement and 15 years of extended supervision. Subsequently, Smith filed a postconviction motion to vacate the judgment of conviction, alleging that he was incompetent at the time of trial and sentencing. The postconviction court appointed experts to evaluate Smith and conducted a retrospective competency evaluation. After an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court found that Smith had been competent to stand trial and be sentenced.

¶ 3 The court of appeals reversed, and the State petitioned for review. In its petition for review, the State raises the following issues: (1) whether the court of appeals improperly weighed evidence rather than deferring to the postconviction court; (2) whether the court of appeals applied an incorrect standard of review to the circuit court's finding that Smith was competent at trial and sentencing, which finding the State asserts is not clearly erroneous; and (3) whether the court of appeals exceeded its constitutional authority by engaging in improper fact finding.

¶ 4 We conclude that the court of appeals failed to apply the clearly erroneous standard of review to the postconviction court's finding of competency and improperly weighed evidence rather than giving deference to the postconviction court's finding. Reviewing the evidence under the proper standard, we conclude that the postconviction court's finding that Smith was competent to stand trial and be sentenced is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.⁴

I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 On the night of October 2, 2007, Smith followed the victim, A.H., out of a bar, beat and raped her. During the course of the attack, Smith hit A.H. in the face, punched her, and slammed her head against the concrete until she was unconscious. After A.H. regained consciousness, she went to a nearby house and asked the occupants to call 911.

¶ 6 On January 7, 2009, the State charged Smith with second-degree sexual assault, a violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.225(2)(a). Prior to trial, Smith made inculpatory statements to police, and the circuit court held a Miranda⁵ -Goodchild⁶ hearing. At the hearing, the circuit court conducted the following colloquy with Smith:

THE COURT: ... Mr. Smith, do you understand that you have the right to challenge both—well, challenge any statements that you made to the police on two grounds. The first ground is that you did not receive your Miranda warnings; do you understand that?

[SMITH]: Yes.

THE COURT: The second ground would be that the statement was not voluntary; do you understand that?

[SMITH]: Yeah.

THE COURT: Voluntariness goes to police impropriety or coercion only; do you understand that?

[SMITH]: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you wish to have a motion on either of those two issues?

[SMITH]: I don't think so, Judge.

THE COURT: You don't think so or you don't want to?

[SMITH]: No.

THE COURT: All right. Have you had enough time to talk to your lawyer?

[SMITH]: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you believe that's in your best interest to proceed in this manner?

[SMITH]: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you understand that your lawyer could argue the fact that you may have been confused, which may go to the weight of the confession?

[SMITH]: Yes.

THE COURT: But certainly does not go to the admissibility; do you understand that?

[SMITH]: Yes.

¶ 7 A jury trial began on October 12, 2009,⁷ where Smith was represented by Attorney Stephen Sargent. After the State presented its case-in-chief, the circuit court conducted another colloquy with Smith:

THE COURT: ... Mr. Smith, you have the right to testify in this matter, you have the right to remain silent. Do you understand that?

[SMITH]: Correct.

THE COURT: You make the choice yourself, sir. Do you understand that?

[SMITH]: Correct.

THE COURT: Have you had enough time to talk to your lawyer?

[SMITH]: Yes.

THE COURT: What's your choice?

[SMITH]: My choice was to waive it.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

[SMITH]: Waive it.

THE COURT: To waive it? So do you want to testify or do you not want to testify?

[SMITH]: I don't want to testify.

THE COURT: All right. And has anyone forced you to do this?

[SMITH]: No.

THE COURT: Do you believe it's in your best interest?

[SMITH]: Yes.

THE COURT: And are you making this choice freely and voluntarily?

[SMITH]: It's freely and voluntarily.

¶ 8 Smith was convicted on October 14, 2009. Smith's sentencing hearing was held on December 11, 2009, where he continued to be represented by Attorney Sargent. At sentencing, the State recommended the "maximum penalty of 25 years' confinement followed by 15 years' extended supervision" due to Smith's numerous previous convictions and pattern of violent, sexual assault. Prior to imposing sentence, Smith made the following statement:

[SMITH]: Today I want to say in court that I have been through a lot in my life. I help peoples and I got—I got this. I bail peoples out of jail, I got this. I let peoples stay in my house, I got this. I let peoples eat at my house, I got this.

Today [A.H.], I don't know what she lookin' for out of me and why is she comin' to court like this? What it is that she want from me? She in love with me or something? Sayin' that she haven't took a shower since this happened to her? What is wrong with her? I let bygones be bygones. Peoples done throw salt on me every day, every day out there on the street. Peoples took money from me at the court sale, at the courthouse. But I let it ride, they wouldn't even give it back. I let it go.

I sit up North, did time behind bailin' this girl, [ ], out of jail in Chicago, Illinois for child neglect, because I went to court the day that she was—she was in court, and I went and bailed her out of jail. And then I hear all of this about me? And she supposed to have been back in court. She never go back. She never go back for her—for—to get her bail back. But I'm the one who had to sign her bail as being right to this day.

I am very, very sorry that I even helped this lady. But these ladies are sayin' things like this about me. And she ain't white like her, the lady that—that I bailed out of jail, she's black. And her daughter, I looked out for them when they was starvin' to death, livin' out on the street corner. I'm out here tryin' to make a living every day at my job workin', lost my job behind all of that, feedin' them, lettin' them stay in the house, ended up getting' in trouble with my landlord by buyin' air-conditionin' and things without asking his permission, could I have it in my apartment with the rent and—and included with the lights.

And this is the thanks I get out of it? 12 years like I murdered someone out there on the street? I sat in there 12 years for bailin' her out of jail. I didn't see all these troubles until I bailed her out of jail. Helped her and her family.

And then my brothers, them too, I even brought them to my house and helped them. When I lived with them, they couldn't even pay the light bill. Wouldn't even pay the light bill. The landlord was lettin' them work off his job to pay the rent. And told him to switch the lights in his name. He didn't even do it.

So by me handin' over parts of my Quest card, because I never gained footage after being locked up after bailing [her] out of jail for being convicted of child neglect, for $200 I had to put my name to that, and now she's on the run and I get all of this out of that? She never—She ain't—wouldn't go back to court because I just see her last year. She worked at the same company as I did, I see her there on the 27th and National. She there.

And then this other lady back in—[ ], she don't even know her name. She callin' me every day. I'm over by my—my—my livin' relatives after I got out of jail, never gained footage, never got a job, never got back to my feet. I know nobody in this courtroom don't care.

And—And at that one time I didn't care about my $40 that I gave away to the courthouse, I gave away $40 for a marriage license fee and I couldn't even get it back from the courts. And this happened before all of this stuff about bailin' [her] out of jail. And the courts seemed like this is all my fault? This is not all my fault.

I also talked to [ ], I sent her a letter last year. And then [ ], I went back to her house after I got out of jail and she still wasn't workin' out right. And then we—I ended up gettin' shot behind all this. I got a bullet hole through my body and laid up at Froedtert Hospital for almost six months out there fightin' for my life because of these people that hates on me.

I can prove it to you that I got the shot, it is right here in my stomach. I got shot, laid up almost 90 days, I was fightin' for my life at Froedtert because I bailed her out.

[ATTORNEY] SARGENT: Excuse me, your Honor. (Brief discussion off the record.)

[SMITH]: It's got to be out there. I need to put this out there on the table.

THE COURT: Well, we're going to have to put an end to this because none of this really has a whole lot to do—

[SMITH]: I know it don't have a whole lot, but, here, I didn't set up in jail and then I got out and then I couldn't even stay on my money, and then I get on SSI and stay on it

...