The Unappealing Nature of Guilty Plea Agreements: Johnson's Restrictions on Appeals of Intellectual Disabilities.

• Date: 22 June 2020
• Author: Brown, Alexander M.

Johnson v. State, 580 S. W.3d895 (Mo. 2019) (en banc).

1. INTRODUCTION

   In 2008, Ronald Johnson was charged with the murder of Luke Meiners, a St. Louis attorney. (1) On the advice of his appointed defense counsel, Johnson pleaded guilty to the charge of first-degree murder to avoid the death penalty. (2) Johnson was ineligible, however, for the death penalty because he was intellectually disabled. (3) After his conviction, Johnson appealed for postconviction relief. (4) Johnson received a mental evaluation, which concluded he was competent to stand trial. (5) Thus, the court upheld his guilty plea. (6) In an appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri, Johnson argued that his conviction should be set aside because he received ineffective assistance of counsel and was coerced into accepting his plea. (7) The Supreme Court of Missouri avoided the merits of Johnson's appeal because of its technical deficiencies. (8) The court further confused the established standards for competency to stand trial and intellectual disability in a way that will affect the rights of intellectually disabled individuals. (9)

   Part II of this Note examines the pertinent facts and holding of the case. Part III analyzes the legal standards for competency to stand trial, the death penalty in relation to intellectual disability, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, Part IV considers how the court's rulings in this case caused injustice to Ronald Johnson and how it will affect the plea-bargaining process for individuals with intellectual disabilities in Missouri moving forward.

2. FACTS AND HOLDING

   Ronald Johnson was diagnosed with mild mental retardation at ten years old when he was found to have an Intelligence Quotient ("IQ") of fifty-three. (10) For the rest of his school career, he was in special education classes until he dropped out in the tenth grade. (11) Additionally, Johnson suffered from a seizure disorder and developed schizophrenia, which caused hallucinations for which he was repeatedly hospitalized and placed on disability. (12) Johnson began a long-term romantic relationship with a man named Cleophus King in his late teens. (13) In 2008, Johnson and King were charged with murder in St. Louis, Missouri. (14) Johnson and his accomplice were recorded on audio killing a local attorney, a friend of Johnson, and then robbing the victim. (15) The State offered not to pursue the death penalty if Johnson would agree to plead guilty to the murder. (16) Johnson's counsel advised him to accept the State's offer because the evidence against him was strong, and the violent nature of the crime would have been damaging at trial. (17) Johnson accepted the plea agreement. (18) At the plea hearing, Johnson affirmed that he had discussed the case with his attorney, understood the charges, and desired to plead guilty. (19) Johnson further affirmed that he did not have any mental disability that would affect his participation in his defense or his understanding of the proceedings and that he understood the guilty plea would forfeit any rights to trial. (20) After these affirmations, the State provided this factual basis to support Johnson's guilty plea:

   Judge, had this matter gone to trial, the state would have proven beyond a reasonable doubt, with readily available witnesses and competent evidence that between March 6, 2008, and March 8, 2008, here in the City of St. Louis, specifically at the home of Cleophus King at 5726 Waterman, [Johnson], acting with Cleophus King, knowingly caused the death of [Victim], a friend and acquaintance of [Johnson], that they caused [Victim's] death by strangling, stabbing, and beating him, and that they used a knife, multiple knives, weapons, and an extension cord on [Victim]. In the course of that, that [Johnson], acting with Cleophus King, stole and robbed [Victim] of his wallet, keys to his jeep, and that they subsequently went and took those items and the victim's jeep and used the victim's credit cards contained within his wallet to purchase items. And that after killing [Victim] that night, they took his body, wrapped him up and dumped him over in Illinois. (21) Johnson affirmed the facts as recited by the State and his satisfaction with his counsel's performance and denied that any threats were made to induce his guilty plea. (22) The circuit court accepted Johnson's guilty plea and imposed a life sentence without the possibility of parole, as recommended in the plea agreement. (23)

   Johnson then filed a motion for post-conviction relief and raised three issues at his post-conviction relief hearing. (24) First, Johnson claimed that he was illegally coerced into accepting his plea deal because the State threatened him with death, despite the fact that his intellectual disability precluded him from receiving that sentence. (25) Second, Johnson alleged he was not competent to plead guilty and will never be competent. (26) Third, Johnson argued that his counsel was ineffective because his attorney failed to request an independent competency evaluation to which he was entitled. (27) Johnson introduced evidence regarding his low IQ and the "threats" of the death penalty made by his plea. (28)

   Additionally, Johnson blamed his counsel for failing to challenge the State's competency evaluation by not seeking an independent evaluation. (29) Johnson's counsel testified that, although he realized Johnson was "slow," he did not know that Johnson had an intellectual disability. (30) Johnson's attorney also denied threatening or encouraging Johnson to accept the plea agreement. (31) Rather, Johnson's plea counsel testified that Johnson made his decision to accept the plea agreement after discussing it with his family. (32) The court rejected Johnson's allegations that he was threatened by his plea counsel and overruled Johnson's motion for post-conviction relief. (33) Johnson appealed, and the Supreme Court of Missouri ordered transfer. (34)

   Johnson appealed his sentence on the grounds that he was coerced into accepting the State's plea agreement, (35) he was not competent to plead guilty, (36) and his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the State's competency evaluation and failing to seek a second competency evaluation. (37) The majority opinion, written by Judge W. Brent Powell, agreed with the trial court that (1) Johnson was not coerced into accepting the State's plea agreement, (2) Johnson was competent to stand trial, and (3) Johnson's plea counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a second competency evaluation. (38) Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. (39)

   The dissent, written by Judge Laura Denver Stith, found that (1) Johnson was coerced, (2) even if competent to stand trial, he was not eligible for the death penalty, and (3) his plea counsel was ineffective. (40) In particular, the dissent found that the evidence presented to the trial court showed that Johnson was intellectually disabled, that this intellectual disability made him incompetent to accept a plea agreement, and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the extent of his intellectual disability. (41) Judge Stith would have reversed the judgment of the motion court and either remanded the case for trial or held an evidentiary hearing to determine the issue of intellectual disability. (42)

3. LEGAL BACKGROUND

   The issues surrounding intellectual disability, competency, the death penalty, and ineffective assistance of counsel are complex. When these problems are combined with a plea agreement, the analysis becomes even more complicated. To understand how the law has developed around each of these issues, it is important to examine them individually. First, this Part examines Missouri competency law and explains its development in state and federal law. Next, this Part examines the Supreme Court of the United States cases and Missouri cases addressing death penalty issues in similar contexts. Finally, this Part examines the law regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

   1. Competency to Stand Trial

      To understand the history of the death penalty and the state of the law it is first essential to understand the role competency plays in determining the efficacy of a death sentence. The Supreme Court of Missouri has defined competency to stand trial as "[the] defendant [having] the sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and having a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." (43) The standards for competency to stand trial are codified by statute. (44) This statute proscribes conviction or sentencing of any individual who does not have the capacity to understand the trial process or adequately assist in his or her defense. (45) When a judge has reason to believe that a defendant lacks capacity, or a motion is filed by either party, the court is required to order an examination to determine the issue. (46) Failure of a judge to order an examination to determine competency has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be a violation of a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial. (47) In Missouri, if neither party requests a second examination, the court may make a finding of competency based on the report of the examiner or impanel a jury of six to make a finding of fact on the issue. (48) Upon a finding that an individual is incompetent to stand trial, the court is required to suspend the criminal proceedings and commit the individual to the Department of Mental Health. (49)

      In the event that incompetency is established before a plea, the incompetent individual is also found to be incompetent to plead guilty. (50) A defendant is presumed to be competent, and the burden of showing incompetency is on the defendant. (51) A presumption of incompetency cannot be created, even if some evidence exists that a defendant suffers from an...