Arthur J. Tarnow, Senior United States District Judge.
Gary Eugene Watkins,("Petitioner"), confined at the Macomb Correctional Facility in New Haven, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
This Court finds that petitioner was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel
Petitioner was originally charged with open murder,
At the initial date for the preliminary examination, petitioner's trial counsel requested that petitioner be evaluated for mental competency and criminal responsibility. (Tr. 1/24/06, p. 3). Petitioner was referred to the Center for Forensic Psychiatry. Two evaluations were performed, one on March 27, 2006 and the other on April 13, 2006.
At petitioner's preliminary examination, the reports from the March 27, 2006 and April 13, 2006 evaluations were admitted. (Tr. 5/26/06, pp. 4-5). The March 27, 2006 report concluded that petitioner was incompetent to stand trial. The April 13, 2006 report, however, indicated that petitioner had been restored to competency. This second evaluation determined that petitioner's refusal to verbally communicate was entirely voluntary. The examiner concluded that petitioner was faking. Based on that, and on a full examination of his history and behavior, the second examiner concluded that petitioner was malingering, he was aware of what was going on, was able to aid in his defense, and so was competent to stand trial. Petitioner's counsel requested an independent evaluation. The state district court judge never explicitly ruled on the request. Rather, the judge found petitioner competent to stand trial. (Id., pp. 8). Petitioner was later bound over to the Washtenaw County Circuit Court for trial. (Id., p. 96).
The trial judge in circuit court subsequently ordered that petitioner be evaluated primarily for criminal responsibility. (Tr. 7/11/06, p. 4).
A third forensic evaluation, dated July 17, 2006, was not specifically aimed at evaluating petitioner's trial competency, but rather a determination as to whether petitioner was criminally responsible at the time of the criminal offense. This evaluation found that petitioner was neither mentally ill nor mentally retarded at the time of the offense and could appreciate the wrongfulness of his action. In passing, the psychologist who wrote this evaluation also believed that petitioner was malingering and came to the same conclusion as the second evaluation, namely, that petitioner was competent.
Four months later, defense counsel again moved for an independent competency evaluation:
(Tr., 9/19/2006, pp. 3-4).
The judge granted counsel's request and a fourth psychiatric evaluation was ordered. (Id., p. 6).
Petitioner's counsel subsequently informed the trial court:
(Tr., 12/12/06, p. 4)(emphasis added).
At a final pretrial conference one week later, petitioner remarked:
(Tr., 12/19/06, p. 4).
On the first day of trial, prior to jury selection, petitioner told the trial court, among other things:
(Tr, 1/8/07, p. 10).
The following exchange also occurred:
(Id., p.12).
Petitioner further "demanded to be restrained." (Id., pp. 12-13). Petitioner then demanded to plead guilty and indicated
During jury selection, petitioner interjected "guilty" several times. (Id., pp. 34, 40). The trial judge ordered petitioner removed from the courtroom after he flipped over a desk and remarked "No more games Michelle." Petitioner was placed in a holding room equipped with a closed-circuit video monitor. (Id., pp. 51-55). The trial judge subsequently remarked: "When we — the volume is too loud and so the officer and the technician went into [sic] adjust the volume and he spit on the officer — the defendant spit on the officer. He also managed to urinate on the television and the — and the cart." (Id., p. 205).
Petitioner remained outside the courtroom during the prosecution's case. Petitioner re-entered the courtroom to testify. The following exchange occurred:
(Tr. 1/9/07, pp. 74-76).
In the presence of the jury, petitioner gave his full name in response to defense trial counsel's question. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked petitioner if he shot and killed the decedent. Petitioner answered, "I'm in fear for my life so I can't testify." (Id., p. 77). Petitioner subsequently testified that he shot the decedent
At sentencing, petitioner's brother informed the court that petitioner had a long history of bizarre, delusional, or paranoid thoughts and behaviors, particularly an obsession with the Masons. (Tr. pp. 22-23). Petitioner then informed the trial judge:
(Id., pp. 33-35).
In sentencing petitioner, the judge acknowledged that petitioner was "clearly mentally ill" and "seriously mentally disturbed." (Id., p. 38).
While petitioner's application for leave to appeal was pending in the Michigan Court of Appeals, petitioner's appellate counsel filed a motion to remand, together with an offer of proof that he had received a copy of petitioner's medical records from the Michigan Department of Corrections, including a report of a comprehensive psychiatric examination performed on March 14, 2007, indicating a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, and that a Dr. Gendernalik prescribed anti-psychotic medication.
Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on appeal. People v. Watkins, No. 283745 (Mich.Ct.App. August 5, 2008); lv. Den. 483 Mich. 1016, 765 N.W.2d 320 (2009).
Petitioner's motion for equitable tolling, his brief in support of equitable tolling, and his affidavit were signed and dated July 28, 2010.
Petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment, which was denied. People v. Watkins, No. 06-70-FC (Washtenaw County Circuit Court, October 28, 2010); reconsideration den. December 28, 2010.
Petitioner filed a second motion for relief from judgment, which was also denied. People v. Watkins, No. 06-70-FC (Washtenaw County Circuit Court, June 11, 2013). The Michigan appellate courts denied petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Watkins, No. 318199 (Mich.Ct.App. October 28, 2013); lv. den. 495 Mich. 1006, 846 N.W.2d 563 (2014).
This Court reopened the petition to the Court's active docket, amended the caption, and permitted petitioner to file an amended habeas petition. Watkins v. Romanowski, No. 2:10-CV-13199, 2014 WL 3894370, at *1 (E.D.Mich. Aug. 7, 2014).
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following grounds:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), imposes the following standard of review for habeas cases:
A decision of a state court is "contrary to" clearly established federal law if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than the Supreme Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). An "unreasonable application" occurs when "a state court decision unreasonably applies the law of [the Supreme Court] to the facts of a prisoner's case." Id. at 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495. A federal habeas court may not "issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly." Id. at 410-11, 120 S.Ct. 1495.
Petitioner claims that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.
This Court reviewed the pleadings, the lower court record, and the decisions of the Michigan Court of Appeals on petitioner's direct appeal and the state courts on petitioner's first-post-conviction motion. The Court concludes that petitioner was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel when his attorney failed to request an additional evaluation of petitioner's competency to stand trial after petitioner continued to engage in bizarre behavior and make incoherent, delusional, and nonsensical remarks at a subsequent pre-trial conference and at trial.
Respondent contends that petitioner's amended habeas petition is time-barred because it was filed beyond the one year limitations period for filing habeas petitions contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Although acknowledging that petitioner's first habeas application was timely filed and subsequently held in abeyance, respondent contends that none of the claims raised by petitioner relate back to the claims raised in his first petition.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a one year statute of limitations shall apply to an application for writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court. The one year statute of limitation shall run from the latest of:
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
A petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed where it has not been
When a habeas petitioner files an original petition within the one-year deadline, and later presents new claims in an amended petition that is filed after the deadline passes, the new claims will relate back to the date of the original petition only if the new claims share a "common core of operative facts" with the original petition. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 664, 125 S.Ct. 2562, 162 L.Ed.2d 582 (2005).
Petitioner's claim in his amended petition that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an independent or additional competency evaluation is timely because it relates back to a claim that he raised in his initial petition, where he raised claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Petitioner's current ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim shares a common core of facts with these claims, thus, it appears to be timely filed.
Moreover, assuming that the amended petition is untimely, the Court would equitably toll the limitations period due to petitioner's mental incompetency.
The AEDPA's statute of limitations "is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases." Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010). A habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling "only if he shows `(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way'" and prevented the timely filing of the habeas petition. Id. at 649, 130 S.Ct. 2549 (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005)).
A habeas petitioner's mental incompetence or incapacity may provide a basis for equitable tolling of the AEDPA's statute of limitations. See Ata v. Scutt, 662 F.3d 736, 742 (6th Cir.2011). Assuming the petition is untimely, the extraordinary circumstances that justify equitable tolling of the limitations period involve petitioner's serious and ongoing psychiatric problems, which were clearly evident throughout his trial, appellate, and state post-conviction pleadings. In United States v Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347, 117 S.Ct. 849, 136 L.Ed.2d 818 (1997), the Supreme Court suggested that tolling based on mental incapacity is allowed when it stated that "[mental disability], we assume, would permit a court to toll the statutory limitations period." Id. at 348, 117 S.Ct. 849. Petitioner satisfies the burden because the exceptional circumstances that justify equitable tolling on the basis of mental incapacity were clearly present during the pendency of his direct appeal and his state post-conviction proceedings. Cf. Brown v. McKee, 232 F.Supp.2d 761, 768 (E.D.Mich.2002).
Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel when his attorney failed to request an additional competency evaluation, in light of petitioner's continued manifestations of bizarre and delusional behavior.
To show that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel under federal constitutional standards, a defendant must satisfy a two prong test. First, the defendant must demonstrate that, considering all of the circumstances, counsel's performance was so deficient that the attorney was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In so doing, the defendant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel's behavior lies within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Id. In other words, petitioner must overcome the presumption that, under
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "the criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates due process." Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 354, 116 S.Ct. 1373, 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996)(citing Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 453, 112 S.Ct. 2572, 120 L.Ed.2d 353 (1992); Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171-172, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966)). A defendant may not be put to trial unless he or she has a sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Id. Under Michigan law, "[W]hether [a] defendant is competent to stand trial is an ongoing concern of the court, and the issue of competence may be raised at any time during or after trial." People v. Garfield, 166 Mich.App. 66, 74, 420 N.W.2d 124 (1988)(citing People v. Hamm, 79 Mich.App. 281, 288, 261 N.W.2d 288 (1977), lv. den. 402 Mich. 888 (1978)).
M.C.R. 6.125(B) provides, in pertinent part:
An attorney has a professional duty to question a defendant's competency to stand trial if they have a good faith doubt as to the defendant's competence. See United States v. Jackson, 179 Fed. Appx. 921, 933 (6th Cir.2006). A criminal defense lawyer has a continuing duty to request a competency evaluation of a criminal defendant if he or she becomes became aware of facts that raise a doubt as to the competency of a defendant during any stage of the criminal proceedings. See Williamson v. Ward, 110 F.3d 1508, 1517-18 (10th Cir.1997).
Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an additional psychiatric evaluation as to petitioner's mental competency. Petitioner was initially found mentally incompetent to stand trial by the Center for Forensic Psychiatry on March 27, 2006. Although a second report indicated that petitioner had been restored to competency, this report was issued on April 13, 2006, only two weeks after the initial report found petitioner incompetent to stand trial. Although this second report indicated that petitioner was "malingering," it acknowledged that petitioner had serious mental problems. A third report was done by the Forensic Center on July 13, 2006, this report dealt primarily with the issue of petitioner's sanity at the time of the offense, although in passing it mentioned that petitioner was "malingering." This report recognized that petitioner had long standing mental health issues.
Petitioner's counsel did request an independent evaluation. Petitioner's counsel subsequently informed the trial court:
(Tr., 12/12/06, p. 4)(emphasis added).
Respondent has not provided this Court with a copy of Doctor Clark's report, but the gist of counsel's remarks suggest that the report dealt primarily with the issue of petitioner's criminal responsibility, i.e. his sanity, and not his competency to stand trial.
Moreover, petitioner continued to manifest bizarre and delusional behavior and make nonsensical and incoherent remarks at a subsequent pre-trial conference and at his trial.
At a final pretrial conference one week after defense counsel mentioned Dr. Clark's report, petitioner remarked:
(Tr., 12/19/06, p 4).
Petitioner appeared to be laboring under the delusion that he had an attorney's license and also erroneously believed that he was scheduled for preliminary examination even though he had already been bound over to trial. These remarks clearly should have raised flags about petitioner's understanding of the proceedings and his ability to assist in his defense.
On the first day of trial, petitioner told the judge:
(Tr, 1/8/07, p. 10).
Petitioner's remark about going back to eat dinner with his wife suggests that he could not fully comprehend that he was incarcerated pending trial and could not leave the court and eat dinner with his wife.
Petitioner later told the judge his name was Michelle [the trial judge's name is Donald Shelton]. Petitioner later stated:
(Id., p. 12).
Petitioner repeated that he would chop the judge up and informed him "I got like a preacher sword, right?" (Id.). Petitioner further "demanded to be restrained." (Id., pp. 12-13). Petitioner then demanded to plead guilty and indicated that he had not eaten a meal since "the first." (Id., p. 13). Petitioner continued to shout that he was guilty and demanded that the judge proceed with sentencing. (Id., p. 14). Petitioner then spat. (Id., p.15).
During jury selection, petitioner again interjected "guilty" several times. (Id., pp. 34, 40). Petitioner's remarks indicate that he was not cognizant of the fact that the parties were picking a jury to determine petitioner's guilt or innocence. Petitioner was ordered removed from the courtroom after he flipped over a desk and remarked "No more games Michelle." Petitioner was placed in a holding room equipped with a closed-circuit video monitor. The trial judge subsequently remarked that petitioner spat on an officer inside of this room and urinated on the television and a cart. (Id., p. 205). This behavior clearly raised serious questions as to petitioner's competency.
When petitioner returned to the courtroom to testify, counsel placed on the record that he had advised his client against testifying but that petitioner insisted on doing so. Petitioner also insisted in wearing his orange jail outfit in front of the jury, in spite of counsel's recommendation that he wear civilian clothes. When the
At sentencing, petitioner told the judge that he had "no real family", that he had been born white, i.e. Caucasian, that the person who was killed on petitioner's porch was his brother [the decedent was unrelated to petitioner]. Petitioner told the judge that his family had to assume aliases and that his "name became Watkins due to the medicine that we use to beat tuberculosis which was killing black kids. But I was born a white baby and got pigment from Quincey." The judge acknowledged that petitioner was "clearly mentally ill" and "seriously mentally disturbed."
While petitioner's application for leave to appeal was pending in the Michigan Court of Appeals, petitioner's appellate counsel filed a motion to remand, which included a copy of petitioner's medical records from the Michigan Department of Corrections including a report of a comprehensive psychiatric examination performed on March 14, 2007. This report indicated a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, and that petitioner had been prescribed anti-psychotic medication.
In light of petitioner's extensive history of mental and psychiatric problems, his continued bizarre behavior and delusional or paranoid statements, his non-responsive answers to some of the judge's or counsel's comments, and his utter inability to cooperate with counsel or follow his advice, counsel was clearly ineffective in failing to request an additional competency evaluation. Williamson, 110 F.3d at 1517-18; See also Brown v. Sternes, 304 F.3d 677, 695-98 (7th Cir. 2002)(substitute counsel was ineffective in failing to demand action on unexecuted subpoena for defendant's medical records from state correctional facility, which would have disclosed a diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia, and to renew request for second psychiatric examination of defendant after defendant's courtroom out-burst when defense rested in bench trial in which defendant pled guilty). Petitioner is thus entitled to the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
The Court orders the State of Michigan to either (1) set a new trial date that is within ninety days of entry of this order or (2) release petitioner unconditionally.
Because this Court's conclusion that petitioner is entitled to habeas relief on this
