# Doss v. State

> Mississippi Supreme Court · October 22, 2009 · 19 So. 3d 690

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9657216

## Case

- **Full name:** Anthony DOSS v. STATE of Mississippi on Motion for Rehearing
- **Court:** Mississippi Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 22, 2009
- **Citations:** 19 So. 3d 690; 2009 WL 3381810
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dickinson
- **Judges:** Waller, Dickinson, Kitchens, Chandler, Lamar, Carlson, Randolph, Pierce, Graves
- **Cited by:** 66 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9657216

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding in the face of similar expert disagreement about standardized adaptive testing and the adaptive functioning of the defendant that neither side’s methodology was infallible and that the ultimate issue of whether the defendant is mentally retarded is up to the trial cour…
- stating that “[a]daptive functioning historically has been assessed ‘on the inherently subjective bases of interviews, observations, and professional judgment’ ”

## Opinion text

DICKINSON, Justice,
Specially Concurring:
¶ 54. I fully join Presiding Justice Graves’s excellent analysis of the first issue, and I agree that this matter should be remanded for a new sentencing hearing. I write separately because of my concern that, in recent years, the acceptable standard for effective assistance of counsel in death-penalty cases has slipped to an unacceptably low level. See e.g. Byrom v. State, 927 So.2d 709, 731-32 (Miss.2006) (Dickinson, J., dissenting).
¶ 55. Although I have no personal reluctance in voting to affirm the death penalty in an appropriate case, I cannot do so where the defendant has not had reasonable (not necessarily perfect) representation and a fair trial; and particularly during the phase of the trial in which the fact-finder decides whether or not to put the defendant to death.
¶ 56. Doss — who very well may deserve the death penalty- — certainly did not have effective or reasonable representation during the penalty phase of his trial. I find it amazing that anyone might conclude otherwise, after reading the affidavit 9 submitted by his trial counsel. I agree that we must remand for a new sentencing hearing on the question of whether Doss should be executed or serve life without parole.
CHANDLER, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.
. The content of the affidavit is set forth in detail in Presiding Justice Graves's opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9657216. Public record. Not legal advice.