Preview:

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 89 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 1st day of December, 2004, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2004-KP-0575 STATE EX REL JIMMY RAY WILLIAMS v. STATE OF LOUISIANA (Parish of E. Baton Rouge) (First Degree Murder) Accordingly, we remand this matter to the district court for evidentiary hearing on the funding question and specific ruling on the statutory issue. The district court should then consider the constitutional issue presented, in light of its ruling on the statutory funding issue. This hearing should be held with preference and priority. REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

12/01/04

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 04-KP-575 STATE EX REL JIMMY WILLIAMS VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE HONORABLE DONALD R. JOHNSON, JUDGE, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

PER CURIAM This post-conviction proceeding concerns funding issues for an indigent death row inmate represented by pro bono counsel. Defendant argues the systematic provision of funds to some death row inmates seeking post-conviction relief violates equal protection guarantees. Defendant's equal protection claim appears to have two facets. First he suggests that those represented by the Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana (CPCPL) get more funding than he does and this fact disadvantages him. Second, he claims that the fact that he has to litigate his funding requests while those who have representation from CPCPL do not have to do so disadvantages him. However, as the record is lacking the necessary evidence and ruling for a proper determination of this funding issue, we remand this matter to the district court for an evidentiary hearing and ruling. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts of the first-degree murder conviction, which is now final, is not necessary to the disposition of the funding issues raised by defendant in his postconviction proceeding. For completeness we will briefly set out the procedural

history from the date of the conviction. A jury convicted defendant, Jimmy Williams, of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death for the June 15, 1994 killing of Gordon Lawless. Finding no reversible error we affirmed both the conviction and the sentence. State v. Williams, 96-1023 (La. 1/21/98), 708 So.2d 703, reh'g denied (La. 2/20/98). Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court. Williams v. Louisiana, 525 U.S. 838, 119 S.Ct. 99, 142 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998), reh'g denied, 525 U.S. 1034, 119 S.Ct. 579, 142 L.Ed.2d 482 (1998). An execution date of February 10, 1999, was set. Defendant filed a pro se motion for a stay of execution and appointment of counsel. This Court granted the stay and ordered the district court to appoint counsel for defendant and to set a reasonable time for counsel to file an application for post-conviction relief, if appropriate. State ex rel. Williams v. State, 99-0365 (La. 2/10/99), 750 So.2d 801. Defendant, through court appointed pro bono counsel, filed a petition for postconviction relief. The commissioner for the district court could make no

recommendation on the petition, based on the petition's failure to state a claim both procedurally and substantively, and recommended that it be dismissed.1 Counsel for defendant moved ex parte for the district court to grant funds for investigation in order for counsel to prepare and file a substantive application for post-conviction relief. The district court, in a series of orders, awarded funds for this investigation. Defendant then filed a first amended and supplemental petition for post-conviction relief. The commissioner issued her recommendations, finding there was sufficient evidence to warrant a full evidentiary hearing on some of defendant's post-conviction claims. Subsequently, the district court issued an oral ruling, wherein it determined a full evidentiary hearing was warranted on some, but not all, of defendant's post-conviction
1

Record, vol. I, p.247. 2

claims.2 The evidentiary hearing was set for February 9, 2004. Prior to the hearing, defendant filed an ex parte motion to secure funding for experts to present defendant's claims at the evidentiary hearing. In this motion, defendant alleged the current system of providing funds to indigent capital postconviction defendants violates equal protection and due process rights because defendants represented by CPCPL receive these funds without having to petition the court. The district court granted $10,000 of the $30,000 defendant requested, ordering the local Indigent Defender Board (IDB) for the 19th Judicial District to make the funds available. Subsequent to this order, the IDB informed the court these funds were not available. Defendant then moved to stay the evidentiary hearing. The district court, after an expedited hearing, ordered the previously scheduled evidentiary hearing converted to a hearing regarding funding availability. After hearing argument and testimony, the district court made the following finding: It is the court's determination and ruling as follows: to direct the defendant to go forward without the assistance of expert assistance at his hearing, which I've determined is appropriate, would violate due process and equal protection of the law. However, to deny the state likewise and the victim's family the right to proceed with all deliberate speed, the right to proceed to a fair and timely adjudication of the issues remaining does substantial injustice to the State and the victim's family. On balance, and I do so reluctantly, I deny the right of the State to continue against this defendant at this time and I do stay the proceedings for the issues and reasons I've noted, and I implore the superior courts of our state to issue appropriate orders to this court, directing that I proceed in a timely fashion on a time schedule to complete this adjudication or direct me to go forward and order the defendant to go forward without such additional
In his writ application and brief, defendant argues the district court erred in dismissing some of his claims and not granting an evidentiary hearing on them. Specifically, defendant complains the court erred in (a) not granting an evidentiary hearing on every alleged instance of ineffective assistance of counsel; (b) not granting a hearing on the claim the State improperly failed to preserve exculpatory evidence; (c) not granting a hearing on the claim the State impermissibly used race as a factor in exercising peremptory challenges; (d) not granting a hearing on the claim jurors impermissibly relied on the personal history related by the jury foreperson; and (e) not granting a hearing on the claim that lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and La. Const. Art. I,

Download 2004-KP-0575       STATE EX REL JIMMY RAY WILLIAMS v. S

Louisiana Law