Whether a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to competency during state post-conviction capital proceedings

Question Presented James Cobb Hutto III has long exhibited cognitive difficulties, likely the product of his difficult childhood and former experience as a Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) combatant. Arrested for the murder of the victim in this case, his relationship with his trial counsel (who was also his appellate counsel) was difficult. Hutto refused to cooperate with his counsel’s efforts to assess his competency. Later, after having been convicted at trial and unsuccessfully challenging his sentence on direct appeal, he was represented by post-conviction counsel from the Mississippi Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel. Hutto would not meet with these lawyers and so, once again, there were no successful efforts to have Hutto’s competency assessed during his capital proceedings. It was only during his federal habeas proceedings, which were held in abeyance to allow counsel an opportunity to raise previously unexhausted claims in Mississippi state court, that Hutto finally submitted to limited psychological testing. Throughout these federal habeas proceedings, counsel has maintained that Hutto is incompetent to assist in the necessary investigation to develop and present his claims. The Mississippi Supreme Court has declared this issue moot since, it asserts, Hutto has no right to competency in post-conviction proceedings relying on its recent state case, Powers v. State, 371 So. 3d 629, 643 (Miss. 2023) (quoting Corrected En Banc Order, Powers v. State, No. 2017-DR-00696SCT, at *1-2 (Miss. June 21, 2022). 1a. The question before this Court is whether there is a Constitutional right to competency during the pendency of capital state-court collateral proceedings.