He
is not an attractive person and neither is his history. By that, I mean a
history of bipolar disease, addiction and petty crime. Mr. Thompson has been
easy pickings for Florida Justice. Unfortunately, Mr. Thompson has not been as
easy a mark as the State would like. He has spent the past fourteen years of a
twenty-five year seeking justice by petitioning the courts for redress. All
that he wants is relief from an unjust and unendurable 25 year prison sentence
as an habitual offender who has never harmed or threatened to harm another
human being. There was no mental health court when Mr. Thompson first
offended. Mr. Thompson’s latest crime?
He keeps coming back to court with petitions asking for sentencing relief and a
way to go home to his elderly mother in New Jersey.
Mr.
Thompson has never committed a crime against a person. In truth, he was charged
once for assault. That crime was a typical domestic conflict that involved
having shoved his angry pregnant girlfriend. Apparently, nobody actually got
hurt. It just looks terrible as a criminal charge. The rest has been burglary.
It is true; nobody likes to have their home or business burgled. But we don’t
put people away for 25 years for simple petty burglary. Some may think we
should, but we don’t…unless you happen to be bipolar, addicted and represented
in court by an attorney suffering the same bipolar disease and struggling with
encroaching symptoms. Yes, two months post trial, Mr. Thompson’s attorney was
forced to resign from the Public Defender’s Office and enter hospitalization
for his mental illness.
Mr.
Thompson was arrested on January 12. 1999 on charges related to the burglary of
a closed convenience store. He was apparently not very good at this business of
committing burglaries, although this certainly was not his first. Of course, Mr.
Thompson was apparently high at the time of his offense. In the course of this
burglary, Mr. Thompson found a loaded gun, an item easily sold on the streets.
He was caught exiting the convenience store with the gun in his possession. Mr.
Thompson was charged with various offenses, principally related to a dominating
charge of Armed Burglary with a weapon. He had prior incarcerations, once for
possession and once for burglary of an unoccupied structure. Mr. Thompson was
ultimately sentenced to three concurrent ten year sentences, two for the
current offense and one for a prior burglary. He was sentenced to a concurrent
25 year sentence on the main charge. There is no doubt about it. Mr. Thompson
was no angel. He was caught virtually with his hands in the till (just outside
of the convenience store) and had a history of unarmed burglary of unoccupied
structures. So, how did his incarceration go from county time to 25 years of
state time?
The
last time Mr. Thompson had been held in a Broward County jail, he was
discharged without medications and without a referral to mental health. He has
related that he was unable to get help at the county Henderson Mental Health
Clinic without a referral due to a wait list. In addition, the jail had failed
to notify Mr. Thompson, until his discharge, that his father had passed away
while he was in the lock-up. Mr. Thompson’s options without medications, a job,
secure housing or a support system were slim to none. He committed his last
offense and has served 14 years of his 25 year incarceration for that.
The
real question is, just how did Mr.Thompson incur so
onerous a sentence as is reserved for the most dangerous of our habitual
offenders. As previously mentioned, the defense attorney made a number of
apparent errors, which, at least in part, reasonably appear to some to have
been due to a developing mental health episode. At the time of his trial in
2000, sentencing relief was afforded individuals who committed crimes due to
drug or alcohol intoxication. Despite Mr. Thompson’s long history of bipolar
disease and addiction, most recently treated by the Broward County Corrections
Department, the attorney did not feel confident to bring the issue forward as a
defense. The attorney’s difficulties following the courtroom procedures and
testimony was the subject of an affidavit lodged at the time of a subsequent
motion for a new trial. Disparaging comments had apparently been made, possibly
in earshot of the jury, by the defense attorney’s secretary. The Defense
Attorney acknowledged that breach in appeal testimony. The Defense Attorney
placed Mr. Thompson on the witness stand…a man with bipolar disease, an
addiction history and frankly less than appealing appearance. He was exposed to
withering cross examination by a prosecution determined to secure habitual
offender sentencing for this red-handed crime.
Mr.
Thompson is once again before the courts with a petition for relief. This time
his petition was accepted by the court. Unfortunately, that is only because the
prosecution failed to lodge a timely response that would have allowed the court
to deny the petition out of hand. When Mr. Thompson appeared in court on this
new petition, the judge accepted the late response by the prosecution and gave
Mr. Thompson until early January 2014 to lodge a response as to why his hearing
for relief should proceed.
A
prison inmate with limited resources is clearly not likely to be capable of a
compelling legal response, pro se, to a professional prosecutor’s argument. In
fact, not to make a legal point here, but to highlight Florida justice, the law
does provide for appointment of legal counsel in order to level the legal
playing field. Here, the Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.850(f)(7) requires the appointment of
legal counsel for an indigent facing prosecution or a legal challenge. And
there is even a ruling that supports the Rule: “…. doubts should be resolved in favor of the indigent petitioner when
a question of the need for counsel is presented.” Russo v. Akers, 724 So. 2d 1151 (Fla.
1998), quoting Graham v. State. The judge hearing Mr.
Thompson’s motion before the court denied his petition for appointment of legal
counsel out of hand in court without a reading of the petition.
The
response to Mr. Thompson’s motion for relief by the prosecutor is voluminous
and detailed, but clearly asserts that Mr. Thompson ought to be enjoined from
making any motions in future unless represented by legal counsel and that his
burdening of the courts ought to be subject to Department of Corrections
disciplinary action including loss of 5 ½ years of gain time. The price of self
advocacy when nobody else will.
Mr.
Thompson has pointed out that he has been clean and sober and maintained on
medications for his bipolar disease for 14 years. He has had no “incidents”
while incarcerated and now works at a minimum security facility. Although Mr.
Thompson has previously petitioned for a new trial, at this point, all that he
seeks is enough relief in reduced sentencing to allow him to qualify for work
release and an opportunity to earn money needed for his return home to New
Jersey and a decent sober life. Now, is that too much to ask?
