Background
A Jackson County grand jury indicted Tony Markel Howard Jr. as a violent habitual offender on charges of aggravated assault on a law-enforcement officer, shooting into a motor vehicle, and possession of a firearm or weapon by a convicted felon. His original trial date was continued after defense counsel sought a mental-health evaluation.
Dr. John Montgomery evaluated Howard and concluded that he was competent to stand trial and had understood the nature and wrongfulness of his alleged conduct. Following a competency hearing, the circuit court found Howard competent. Howard later sought a second evaluation by Dr. Gregory Fox at county expense. The court declined to require the county to pay, but allowed Howard to obtain an evaluation at his own expense. Although it initially denied an oral continuance request, it later granted a written request so Howard could see Dr. Fox; trial ultimately occurred eight months later. A jury convicted Howard on all counts, and he received three concurrent life sentences.
The Court’s Holding
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Howard’s oral request for a continuance at the February 4 hearing. The court emphasized that Howard was not barred from seeking a second evaluation; the trial court denied only his request for county-funded payment.
No manifest injustice resulted because the circuit court subsequently continued the case, Howard obtained the second evaluation, and trial did not begin until eight months later. The Supreme Court also noted that the record contained no motion for a new trial raising the continuance issue, which potentially procedurally barred the claim, but it resolved the appeal on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant is entitled to an appropriate examination by a competent psychiatrist, not a second or favorable evaluation merely because counsel seeks one.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over continuances, subject to reversal only when denial causes manifest injustice.
- An initial denial of a continuance does not warrant reversal where a later continuance affords the requested opportunity and no prejudice results.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that competency claims turn on the record of competency and actual prejudice, not simply on a defendant’s desire for another expert opinion. It also illustrates the importance of preserving continuance challenges in a post-trial motion while showing how later procedural developments can defeat a claim of prejudice.