Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
Assigned on Briefs September 25, 2001 CHARLES MITCHELL v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamblen County No. 99CR034 James E. Beckner, Judge

No. E2000-03153-CCA-R3-PC November 20, 2001 The petitioner, Charles Mitchell, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree murder and resulting sentence of life without parole. First, he contends that his mental condition prevented him from knowingly and intelligently entering his guilty plea. Second, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense attorneys (1) did not seek to suppress statements that the petitioner gave to police soon after he murdered his wife; (2) did not use diminished mental capacity in his defense; (3) induced him to plead guilty by telling him that the state had filed a notice to seek the death penalty when no such notice had been filed; and (4) failed to request a more detailed mental evaluation of him. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed JOSEPH M. TIPTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOE G. RILEY and ALAN E. GLENN, JJ., joined. Kevin W. Shepherd, Maryville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Charles Mitchell. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Elizabeth T. Ryan, Assistant Attorney General; C. Berkley Bell, Jr., District Attorney General; and W. Chris Scruggs, Assistant District Attorney General for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION On February 9, 1998, the petitioner pled guilty to premeditated first degree murder, a Class A felony. At the guilty plea hearing, the state presented the following factual account of the crime: On June 25, 1997, the petitioner beat his wife with a hose filled with lead and shot her in the head. He then wrapped the victim's body in a carpet, loaded the body into a car, and drove the car to Hamblen County. He set the car on fire, burning the victim's body beyond recognition. The next morning, the petitioner called his sister, Faye Mitchell, and told her that he had shot his wife. Faye Mitchell later called another sister, and they tried to reach the victim at work. When they could not

contact her, they called 9-1-1. Meanwhile, the petitioner had told two individuals that he shot the victim "point-blank." One witness heard the petitioner say that he shot the victim sixteen times. When the police arrived at the petitioner's business, the petitioner told them to take him to jail. The police took the petitioner to the jail and gave him his Miranda rights. The petitioner told Detective Larry Samsel that he had tried to poison his wife by putting strychnine in her coffee, but the coffee was bitter and she would not drink it. He then confessed to beating and shooting her, and he led officers to the victim's body. A physician, who positively identified the body as that of the petitioner's wife, found sixteen lead impressions in the victim's skull. At the post-conviction hearing, the petitioner testified that he cannot read or write and only has a second-grade education. He said that he spent very little time talking with his defense attorneys about his case. He said that he pled guilty because his attorneys told him that he was going to get the death penalty and that he did not know what to do. He said that he thought that the death penalty meant that he would get life in prison. He said that at the guilty plea hearing, the judge "read out stuff," but he did not know what it meant or what to say. He said that his attorneys told him not to tell the judge that he did not understand and "just to say, yes, sir" when the judge asked him a question. He said that he did not know that by pleading guilty, he was admitting to murdering his wife and that he was going to jail for the rest of his life. He said that the Hamblen County Sheriff, Charles Long, told him that he would have the petitioner out of jail in thirty days. The petitioner testified that in prison, he sees a psychiatrist once a week and is on medication. He said that he had not taken his medication the night before or the morning of the post-conviction hearing. On cross-examination, the petitioner said that he did not know what the Miranda rights are. When the state asked him if he remembered answering "no" to some of the judge's questions at the guilty plea hearing, he said that he might have answered "no" if his attorneys whispered that answer to him. He said that before he murdered his wife, he owned a junkyard business. At the post-conviction hearing, the petitioner's lead trial attorney testified that at the time of the hearing, he had been licensed to practice law for twenty-three years. He said that the petitioner gave two statements to police. He said that in the first statement, the petitioner gave a detailed description of the crime. He said that in the second statement, the petitioner said that he had tried to poison his wife and that he hired someone named Jack Kennedy to kill her. The attorney stated that the petitioner indicated to him that the second statement was false. He said that the petitioner had emotional swings and that he was concerned about the petitioner's mental state. He said that the defense hired Dr. Eric Engum to evaluate the petitioner's mental condition and that Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute also evaluated the petitioner. He said that neither evaluation supported an insanity defense and that both evaluations stated that the petitioner could assist his attorneys with his defense. He said that the petitioner assisted him with the defense. The petitioner's lead counsel testified that the petitioner wanted to assert the defense that the victim deserved to die. He said that at times, the defendant would cry and express remorse for killing the victim. He said that a co-defendant by the name of "Rose" surfaced and that Mr. Rose stated that about a week before the petitioner killed the victim, the petitioner told Mr. Rose that he -2-

was going to do something to the victim. He said that based on Mr. Rose's statement, evidence that the petitioner previously tried to poison the victim, lack of an insanity defense, and the brutality of the crime, he thought it would be difficult to negate premeditation and avoid the death penalty. He said that he constantly considered using diminished mental capacity in the petitioner's defense. He said that had the case gone to trial, the diminished capacity defense "would have been handy were we facing the issue between life without parole and the death penalty. But I'm not sure that it would have gotten us away from the death penalty; if we would have been successful, we would have life without parole." He said that the state agreed not to file a notice to seek the death penalty in return for the petitioner pleading guilty and receiving a sentence of life without parole. He said that he filed discovery and Brady motions in the case. On cross-examination, the petitioner's lead counsel testified that he spent extra time with the petitioner. He said that, initially, the petitioner talked freely with the police. He said that the petitioner and several police officers, including Sheriff Long and Detective Hayes, were friends and that this may have made the petitioner unusually cooperative and trusting of the police. He acknowledged that Dr. Engum's report said that the petitioner was only "borderline capable" of consulting with his attorney. He said that because of the petitioner's mental state, he had to explain carefully the guilty plea to the petitioner and what the trial court would say at the guilty plea hearing. He said that Dr. Engum's report recommended that the petitioner receive a detailed psychological evaluation and that the petitioner got such an evaluation at Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute. He said that if the case had gone to trial, he would have used the petitioner's diminished mental capacity to keep a jury from imposing the death penalty. He said that the petitioner's diminished mental capacity was used to get the plea agreement with the state. The petitioner's co-counsel testified for the state that she was surprised when Dr. Engum's and Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute's reports did not support an insanity defense. She said that the petitioner told her that if she had told him what to say, he could have convinced Dr. Engum that he was crazy. She said that lead counsel did not whisper answers to the petitioner during the guilty plea hearing. She said that at the guilty plea hearing, the petitioner may have asked her to explain some of the trial court's questions. She said that she and lead counsel explained to the petitioner what life without the possibility of parole meant. She said that lead counsel met with the petitioner for hours. She said that some days, the petitioner seemed to understand what was going on. On cross-examination, the petitioner's co-counsel stated that she and lead counsel hired Dr. Engum to evaluate the petitioner because they were deeply concerned about the petitioner's mental state and wanted an evaluation that had no connection to the state of Tennessee. She said that Dr. Engum did a limited mental evaluation of the petitioner because the defense could not afford to pay Dr. Engum for a detailed evaluation. She said that she did not know if lead counsel considered using a diminished mental capacity defense. She said that she did not tell the petitioner that the state had filed a notice to seek the death penalty. She said that she told the petitioner that she was worried that the state would file such a notice. She said that the first time she and lead counsel met with the

-3-

petitioner, the petitioner indicated that he was worried about receiving the death penalty. She said that the state never filed a notice to seek the death penalty. A transcript of the petitioner's guilty plea hearing was introduced into evidence. In that hearing, the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: How old are you? THE DEFENDANT: Fifty-five. THE COURT: What education do you have? THE DEFENDANT: I don't have much, sir. About third grade. THE COURT: Did you learn to read and write? THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. THE COURT: Okay. [Defense Counsel]? [Lead Defense Counsel]: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Have you read this paper that the defendant has signed waiving his rights and pleading guilty to him verbatim? [Lead Defense Counsel]: Yes, I have, your Honor. THE COURT: And explained it? [Lead Defense Counsel]: To the best of my ability, your Honor, yes, I have. THE COURT: Well, the best of your ability is a pretty high standard. Mr. Mitchell, did you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Do you have any questions about it? THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.

-4-

THE COURT: Anything about your health, physical, or mental condition that would cause you not to fully and completely understand these proceedings here today? THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. [Lead Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, for the record, Mr. Mitchell is taking some medications; but I've checked, and there's nothing about that medication that would impede his ability to proceed today that I know of; and in speaking with him this morning, he seems very, very clearheaded and ready. THE COURT: Have you had any alcohol or drugs within the last 24 hours? THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.

After the trial court read the charge from the indictment and explained the elements of the crime, the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: Okay. Do you understand that -- You are charged with first degree murder, and, of course, the possible punishments for first degree murder, premeditated, are death by electrocution in Tennessee, life without parole, and life. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. [Lead Defense Counsel]: We understand that. THE COURT: And do you understand that should you go to trial on a charge such as this, certainly the jury would be presented other offenses, lesser offenses, for which you could be convicted rather than this principal charge of first degree murder? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And it certainly is possible that you could be convicted of something less and receive a lesser sentence. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. -5-

THE COURT: Also, understanding what your plea is today, it is possible that you could receive a greater sentence; do you understood [sic] that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Okay. Do you understand that -- Well, first, let me see -- Is this your -- Do you understand what these punishments mean? Of course, do you understand what it means to, for instance -I'm sure you understand what it means to have a punishment of life, or death by electrocution. Do you understand what a sentence of life without parole means? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Can you explain that to me? Do you understand that means that you're going to spend the rest of you life in the penitentiary without any chance of parole? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. .... THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Do you do so freely and voluntarily of your own free will? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Any force or threats of any kind used against you to cause you to plead guilty? THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. THE COURT: Any promises made to you except for your agreement with the State? THE DEFENDANT: No. .... -6-

THE COURT: Are you satisfied with the representation of you by your lawyer, [lead defense counsel], and your lawyer, [co-counsel]? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Any complaint in any way about how they've represented you? THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. THE COURT: Anything that I've told you or asked you that you do not understand? THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.

The trial court denied the post-conviction petition, finding that the petitioner knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered his plea and that he did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court noted that in the guilty plea hearing, the petitioner seemed to understand fully and completely all of the questions, and the petitioner appropriately answered "yes" and "no." Furthermore, the trial court decided that the state made an offer not to seek the death penalty in return for the petitioner pleading guilty and being sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The trial court found that defense counsel explained the offer in great detail to the petitioner and that the petitioner decided to accept the state's offer. While the trial court believed that Dr. Engum's report raised concern about the petitioner's diminished mental capacity, it decided that if the defendant had gone to trial, no better result would have been reached than a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. In order for a petitioner to succeed on a post-conviction claim, the petitioner must show the allegations set forth in his petition by clear and convincing evidence. Tenn. Code Ann.

Download Mitchellc.pdf

Tennessee Law