I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - DR- 0 0 0 5 9 - S CT BLAY DE GRAY

S ON a / k / a BLAY DE N. GRAY

S ON a/ k/ a B L A Y D E N A T H A N I EL GRA Y

SO N a/ k/ a BLA YDE N. AM ODEO
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 08/ 1997 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. KAT HY KI NG J AC KS ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: GEORGE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : OF F I CE OF CA P I T AL P OS T - CO NVI CT I ON CO UN SEL BY : GLEN N S. SW AR TZFAGER AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L B Y : JA S O N L . D A V IS CA M E RO N B E NT ON N A TU RE O F TH E C A SE: CI V I L - D EA TH PEN A LTY - PO ST CO NVI CT I ON DI SP OSI TI ON : M OTI ON FOR LEA VE TO FI LE S UC CE S S OR P E T I T I ON F OR P O S T -C O N V IC T IO N R E L IE F IS DI SM I SS ED A S P RO CED UR ALLY BA RR E D. L E AVE T O P RO CE E D I N T HE CI RC UI T CO UR T W I T H A MOTI ON F OR A C C E SS IS G R A N T E D - 04/ 18/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . B layd e G ray so n w as ind ict ed for ca p it al m u rde r w h il e in the co m m issi o n o f bu rglary
w i th the i nt entt o s t eal per s onal pr operty. A G eor ge C ounty j ury f ound hi m gui l ty of

capi t al

### 2

m u rde r and, i n a sepa rat e sent encing p roceed i ng , sent enced him t o d eath. T his C ou rt
a ff ir m e d G ra y s o n ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d d e a th s e n te n c e . G ra y so n v. Sta te , 8 06 S o. 2 d 2 41 (M i ss. 2 0 0 1 ) ( G r ay s on I

), cer t . deni ed , G r ays on v. Mis s is s i ppi , 537 U . S. 973, 123 S. Ct . 466, 154 L . E d. 2d 329 ( 2002) . T hi s C our t ’ s m andat e i s s ued on February 14, 2002. ¶2. O n February 14, 200 3, G rayson fi l ed h i s f i rs tpeti t i on seeki ng po st -convi ct i on c o lla te ra l r e lie f (P C R ). W e d e n ie d re lie f. G ra y so n v. Sta te , 879 So. 2d 1008 ( M i s s . 2004) ( G rayson II

), cer t . deni ed, G r ays on v. Mis s is s i ppi , 5 4 3 U. S. 1 1 5 5 , 1 2 5 S. Ct . 1 3 0 1 , 1 6 1 L. E d . 2 d 1 2 2 (20 0 5 ). ¶3 . G ray so n ha s fi led h is “ M o tio n fo r L e a v e to F ile S u c c e ss o r P e tit io n fo r P o stC o n v ictio n R e lief” a n d “ M o tio n fo r A c c e ss .” T h e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l h a s filed re sp o n se s to the m oti on s and G rayson h as r epli ed to the respon ses.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶4. A f

ul l r eci t at i on of

the f act s i n thi s cas e i s foun d i n t his C ou rt ’s opi ni on on di r ect
a p p e a l. See G r ay s on I, 806 So. 2d at244- 47. I n s um m ary, on the morni ng of M ay 5, 1996, the body of

s eventy- ei ght
- year - ol d M i nni e Sm i th w as di s cover ed by hers on- i n- l aw . M rs . S m ith h a d b e e n b ru tally m u rd e re d in h e r o w n b e d . S h e h a d b e e n sta b b e d m o re th a n th irty t i m es , s uf

f er ed bl unt - f

or ce tr auma, and had w ounds i ndi cat i ng thats he had tr i ed t o pr ot ect her s el f fr om herm ur der er . A f t eri nt ervi ew i ng nei ghbor s , pol i ce f ocus ed thei ratt ent i on on B l ayde G r ays on. A tthatt i m e, G r ays on w as a f ugi t i ve fr om j us t i ce, havi ng w al ked aw ay from a re sti tuti o n ce n ter i n Jac k so n C o u n ty se v era l m o n ths e arli er.

### 3

¶5. P oli ce l ocated G rayson i n F l o ri d a. W h il e in c u stod y in F lori d a, G ray so n fi rs t i ndi cat ed thathe w ant ed t o t al k t o G eor ge C ounty author i t i es . A f t erG r ays on s i gned a
w ai ver - of

- r i ght s f orm , Sher i f

f G eor ge M i l l er of G eor ge C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , began in ter v iew in g G ra y so n . A fte r a fe w m in u tes , G ra y so n in v o k e d h is rig h t to c o u n se l. ¶ 6 . G ra y so n w a s tra n sp o rte d to G e o rg e C o u n ty . A few d a y s la ter , h e a sk e d to sp e a k w ith author i t i es , w ai ved hi s r i ght s , a nd ga ve a s hor t , hand- w r i t t en s t at ementadmi t t i ng thathe w as a t th e sc e n e o f th e c rim e , b u t alle g in g th a t h e d id n o t k ill S m ith . G ra y so n a lleg e d th a t h is
c o m p a n io n , Ja so n K ilp a trick , h a d k ill e d S m ith , an d h e a ss e rte d th a t h e h a d n o th in g to d o w ith th e m u rd e r. T w o d a y s a fte r th a t, G ra y so n w a iv e d h is rig h ts a n d g a v e an o th e r sta tem e n t, th is t i m e gi vi ng m uch more det ai l , buts t i l l al l egi ng thatK i l patr i ck had ki l l ed Sm i th. “A tthe concl us i on of

thi s i nt ervi ew , G r ays on agr eed t o t ake apol ygr aph t es t . T hat t es tt ook pl ace on Fr i day, M ay 24, i n J acks on. A f t erthe po l ygr aph exa m i neri ndi cat ed thatG r ays on had f ai l ed the t es tand ac cus ed hi m of l yi ng, G r ays on admi t t ed t o ki l l i ng Sm i th. ” G r ay s on I, 806 S o . 2 d a t 2 4 6 -4 7 . G ra y so n sig n e d a w a iv e r-o f-rig h ts fo rm an d the n ex p lain e d th e c rim e in d etail . T h e statem en t also w as v ideo tape d . G ray so n ex p lai n ed that h e a n d K il p atri ck w ere a l mo s to u to f

d ru g s a n d th e y wa n t e d t o s t e a l s o me th i n g t o s e l l t o g e tmo n e y f o rd ru g s . He b ro k e in to S m ith ’s h o u se to ste a l a sh o tg u n th a t h e k n e w s h e o w n e d . H e h a d k n o w n S m ith hi s ent i r e l i f

e. W hi l e he w as i n herhous e, s he aw oke and a s ked “w ho i s ther e. ” H e “f r eake d
ou t ” and grabbe d a k nif e fr o m h er k it chen . A s he app roached her bed , she st at ed “p l ease do n’ t . ” A f

t erhe ki l l ed her , he and K i l patr i ck f l ed t o Fl or i da w her e they s ol d the s hot gun.

### 4

W i th hel p f

r om G r ays on, pol i ce w er e abl e t o l ocat e the murde rw eapon a nd a che ckbook that
w as s t ol en f

r om Sm i th’ s hom e. ¶7. A G eor ge C ounty j ury convi ct ed G r ays on of capi t al m ur der . I n a s epar at e s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng, the j ury s ent ence d hi m t o death. O n appea l t o thi s C our t , G r ays on as s ert ed the fol l ow i ng i ssues: I. T h e trial c o u rt e rre d in fa ili n g to g ra n t th e A p p e llan t’s m o tio n to supp res s st at em ents given t o law enforcem ent of fi cers . I I . T he tr i al courte rr ed i n de nyi ng the D ef endant ’ s m ot i on f

orchange of venue. I I I . T he tr i al courterr ed i n al l ow i ng the i ntr oduct i on of phot ogr aphs of

the vi ct i m and of

the cr i m e s cene i nt o evi dence . IV . T h e trial c o u rt e rre d in fa ili n g to g ra n t th e A p p e llan t’s m o tio n to decl ar e M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 19( e) uncons t i tut i onal ori n the al t ernat i ve t o pr ecl ude the pros ecut i on f r om r el yi ng on M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 99- 19- 101( 5) ( d) as an aggr avat i ng c irc u m sta n c e o f th e A p p e llan t’s p o ss ib le c a p ital se n ten c e trial. V . T he tr i al courterr ed i n notgr ant i ng the A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on f orm i s tr i al bas ed on comm ent s m ade by pot ent i al j ur or s dur i ng voi rdi r e. V I. T h e tri al co u rterred in stri k ing j u rors B ri d g et P h il li p s an d B ern ard G o ff w i thoutpr opers how i ng thatthe pot ent i al jur or s coul d notf ol l ow the l aw i n r egar d t o the dea th penal ty. V I I . T he tr i al co urterr ed i n denyi ng the A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on f orf unds f or pr i vat e i nves t i gat orand j ury cons ul t antdespi t e r epea t ed r eques t s by the A p p e llan t. G r ay s on I, 8 0 6 S o . 2 d a t 2 4 4 . W e fo u n d th e s e is s u e s to b e w ith o u t m e ri t a n d a ff ir m e d . I d. at245.

### 5

¶8 . I n February and M ay 2003, G r a ys on t i mel y f i l e d hi s f

i r s tPC R pet i t i on and a supp l em ental P C R peti t i on . G rayson rai sed the fol l ow i ng cl ai m s: 1) T he St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi vi ol at ed G r ays on' s f undament al Si xth A m endment r i ghtt o c ou ns e l b y de l a yi ng the f i l i ng o f a f ormal c ha r ge f

orthe p urpos e of obt ai ni ng an un- couns el ed conf es s i on. 2 ) P eti ti o n er' s E igh th A m en d m en t ri g h ts w ere violated by the im p o sit ion o f a se n ten c e o f d e a th b a se d o n ju ry in stru c tio n s w h ich w e re c o n stitu tio n a lly d efe cti v e in ligh t of Tis on v. Ari z ona . 3) M i ssi ss i ppi ' s death penal ty s t atut es ar e uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o the pet i t i onerand as a re s ul t , hi s E i ghth A m endmentri ght s undert he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and the corr es pondi ng por t i ons o f the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on w er e vi ol at ed. 4) Pet i t i onerw as deni ed hi s S i xth A m endmentri ghtt o ef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of co u n sel w ith in the m ea n ing o f Str i ckland v. W as hington . 5 ) T h e se n ten c e re n d e re d a g a in st th e p e tit io n e r is d isp ro p o rtio n a te a n d in vi ol at i on o f the E i ghth and Four t eenth A m endment s of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and the corr es pondi ng por t i ons of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on. 6) Pet i t i onerw as deni ed hi s r i ght s guar ant eed by the Fi f th, Si xth, E i ghth and Four t eenth A m endment s of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and M i s s i s s i ppi L a w d u e to th e c u m u lativ e e ffe c t o f th e e rro rs a t h is c a p ital tria l. 7 ) P e tit io n e r' s g ro u n d s fo r in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. 8 ) S en tenc ing jury v erd ictd o es n o t r eflect th at the ag g rav ati n g fac tors w ere fo u n d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. 9 ) P u rsu a n t to M iss . C o d e A n n . § 4 7 -7 -2 9 , im p o sitio n o f th e d e a th se n ten c e is pr ohi bi t ed unt i l s uch t i m e as G r ays on has compl et ed t he or i gi nal s ent ence s m et ed outf

orof f ens es com m i t t ed bef

or e he w as atl ar ge upon pr obat i on and pr i ort o the s ent ence i m pos ed i n thi s cas e. 10) T he aggr avat i ng f

act or s el evat i ng the cha r ge t o a capi t al of f ens e w er e not i ncl uded i n G r ays on' s i ndi ctm entand the r ef or e hi s death penal ty m us tbe vaca t ed.

### 6

11) T he " avoi ding orpr event i ng a l aw f ul arr es t " a ggr avat i ng f act orw as i nappr opr i at e i n thi s cas e and i tw as f undament al err ort o presenti tt o the s ent enci ng j ury f

orcons i der at i on f

orthe i m pos i t i on of

a s ent ence of

death. 12) T he courterr ed i n al l ow i ng the j ury t o cons i derpecuni ary gai n and bu rgl ary as aggravati ng ci rcum st ances. W e c o n clud ed “tha t no rev ersible e rror w as co m m itted in the tri al of this ca se” an d G ray so n ’s p e titio n w a s d e n ie d . G rayson II, 879 So. 2d at1023- 24. ¶ 9 . G ra y so n h a s n o w file d h is “ M o tio n f o r L e a v e to F ile S u c c e ss o r P e tit io n fo r P o stC onvi ct i on R el i ef

” and hi s “ M ot i on f

orA cce s s . ” G r ays on as s ert s thathi s m ot i on i s exce pt ed fr om proced ural bars and h e rai ses the fol l ow i ng cl ai m s: A . G r ays on’ s death s ent ence m us tbe vac at ed, pur s uantt o the Ei ghth and Four t eenth A m endment s t o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on, becaus e the ju ry in se n ten c in g w a s n o t in stru c ted th a t itc o u ldc o n sid e r a n y a n d a ll m it igating ev iden ce b ey o n d that sp ec if icall y en u m era ted in the c o u rt ’s i nstruct i on s. B . G r ays on’ s death s ent ence m us tbe vac at ed, underthe Ei ghth and F ou rt eenth A m end m ents t o the U nit ed S t at es C on st i tuti on , becau se G r ays on’ s j ury w as notadequa t el y i nstruct ed thatG r ays on w oul d be in e lig ib le f

o r p a ro le if s e n ten c e d to life im p riso n m e n t. C . G r ays on’s r i ght s underthe Si xth and Four t eenth A m endment s of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on w er e vi ol at ed, i n thathe w as de pr i ved of the ef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el atbot h t he gui l t - or - i nnocenc e and p e n a lty sta g e s o f th e trial a n d o n d ire c t ap p e a l. D . T hi s s ucce s s i ve pet i t i on i s notbarr ed bec aus e G r ays on w as deni ed the ef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

pos t - convi ct i on couns el dur i ng hi s fi r s tatt empt to o b tai n p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef. E . G r ays on s eeks acc es s t o hi s expert s f orthe purpos e of

eval uat i on, tes tin g , an d a n y o th e r p u rp o se re a so n a b ly n e c e ss a ry fo r th e fu ll l i t i gati on of G rayson’s post -convict i on cl ai m s.

### 7 A N A L Y S IS S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶1 0 . In c o n si deri ng a successi ve m oti on seeki ng po st -convict i on co ll ateral reli ef, th is C o u rt
w ill deny r el i ef

unl es s t he cl ai m s ar e notpr ocedur al l y barr ed and they make a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of

the deni al of

a s t at e orf

eder al r i ght . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 27 ( Supp. 2011) . A bs entan appl i cabl e exc ept i on, a s ucce s s i ve mot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i s pr ocedur al l y barred. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- [2 7 (9 )] (S u p p . 2 0 1 1 ); R o w la n d v. Sta te , 4 2 S o . 3 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 7 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 ). H a v a rdv. Sta te , 86 So. 3d 89 6, 89 9 ( M i s s . 20 12 ) ( qu ot i ng K n ox v. Sta te , 75 So. 3d 1030, 1036 ( M i s s . 2011) ) . I f

the cl ai m s ar e notpr ocedur al l y barr ed, T he s t andar d of

r evi ew f

orcapi t al convi ct i ons and s ent ence s i s “one of ‘ hei ghtened scrut i ny’ underw hi ch al l bona f i de doubt s ar e r es ol ved i n f avor of the ac cus ed. ” Flo w e rs v. S ta te , 773 So. 2d 309, 317 ( M i s s . 2000) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed). “T his C ou rtrecogn i zes that ‘ w hat m ay b e harm l ess errori n a case w i th l es s ats t ake be comes r ever s i bl e err orw hen the pena l ty i s death. ’ ” Id . Ch a m b e rlin v. S ta te , 5 5 S o . 3 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 4 9 -10 5 0 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 ). G r ays on al l ege s tha tthis s uc c e s s i v e pe t i t i on is no tba r r e d b e c au s e G r ays on w as den i ed the ef

f ect i ve assistan ce of post-convi ct i on cou nseldu ri nghis f i rst a ttem p t to o b ta in p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief. ¶11 . G r ays on’ s cl ai m thathe w as deni ed the eff ect i ve assi st ance o f post -convict i on cou nsel d u r i n g h i s o r i g i n a l P CR p r o c e e d i n g s mu s tb e a d d r e s s e d f i r s t . Th i s i s Gr a y s o n ’ s s e c o n d P CR
m ot i on, and i ti s barr ed as a su cce s s i ve w r i tunl es s i tm eet s an exc ept i on t o the pr ocedur al bar . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 27( 9) ( Supp. 2012) . A ddi t i onal l y, Sect i on 99- 39- 5( 2) ( b) of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode r equi r es m ot i ons s eeki ng pos t -convi ct i on col l at er al r el i ef i n deathpenal ty case s be f

i l ed w i thi n one yea raf

t erthe i s s uance of

thi s C our t ’ s m andat e on di r ect

### “[ I] t i s a bsurd to f ant as iz e that

[a ] lawyer

mi ght e ff ec tively or e thi cally liti gat e the 1 

### is sueof hi s own inef

fe ctivenes s. ” Pitch

ford v. Sta te , 45 So. 3d 21 6, 23 2 (Miss. 2010) ( qu oting L

ynch v. Sta te , 95 1 S o. 2 d 5 49 , 55 1-5 2 (M iss. 20 07 ); Rea d v. State , 430 So. 2d 832, 838 ( Mis s. 1982)) . 8 a p p e a l. P u c k e tt v. S ta te , 8 34 So . 2 d 67 6, 6 77 - 78 ( M i s s . 2 00 2) . A mot i on f i l e d a f t e rt hat deadl i ne i s t i m e- barr ed unl es s i tmeet s a n e xcept i on t o the pr ocedur al bar . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 9 9 -3 9 -5 (2 ) ( S u p p . 2 0 1 2 ). H ava rd , 8 6 S o . 3 d at 89 9 . E x ce p ti o n s t o th ese p roc ed u ral ba rs ar e f ound i n cas el aw and i n the appl i cabl e s t atut es . M i s s Code A nn. §§ 99- 39- 5( 2) and 99- 3 9 -2 7 (9 ) (S u p p . 2 0 1 2 ); R o w la n d v. Sta te , 98 So. 3d 1032, 1036 ( M i s s . 2012) ( “I n addi t i on t o t he s t a tut ory e xc e pt i on s a f f or de d by the Act , we h a ve p r ov i de d tha ta n e xc e pt i on t o t he pr ocedur al bar s exi s t s f orerr or s af

f ect i ng cert ai n cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ”) ¶12 . T he M i ssi ssi pp i U nif orm P ost -C on vict i on C oll at eral R el i ef A ct(the P C R A ct ) st at es: D i r ectappea l s hal l be the pr i nci pal m eans of r evi ew i ng al l cr i m i nal convi ct i ons and s ent ence s , and the purpos e of thi s art i cl e i s t o provi de pri soners w i th a p rocedu re, l i m i t ed in n ature, t o revi ew tho se object i on s, def ens es , cl ai m s , ques t i ons , i s s ues or err or s w hi ch i n pra ct i cal r eal i ty coul d not b e o r sh o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n ra ise d a t trial o r o n d ire c t ap p e a l. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 3( 2) ( R ev. 2007) . G r ays on cl ai m s thathe had ari ghtt o the ef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

c ouns el dur i ng hi s f

i r s tPC R pr ocee di ngs a nd thathe w as deni ed that rig h t. C lea rly , this c laim c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n ra ise d a t tria l o r o n d ire c t ap p e a l, so th is c laim is a p p ro p ria tely ra ise d in a P C R m o tio n . A d d iti o n a lly , th is c laim “ in p ra c tica l re a lity c o u ld
n o t” h a v e b e e n ra is e d in G ra y s o n ’s fi rs t P C R m o tio n . Id . 1 ¶13. G r ays on ar gu es t hat he did no trecei ve m i nim al l y adeq uat e PC R r epr es ent at i on g u a ra n tee d b y s tate a n d fe d e ra l la w , a n d th e re fo re , h e c a n sh o w c a u se fo r n o t p re se n tin g h is

### In Jacks on, thi s Cour t he ld: 2 

### that in ca pitalca se s, st at e pos t- conviction ef forts , though col lateral, have be c om epart

of thede ath p e nal ty a

ppe a lproc e s s at

thes t at el e ve l . We there fore f

ind t hat Ja cks on, a s a

death row inm at e, i s entitle d to appointe d and comp ensatedcounsel to represent him inhis state p ost-co nv ictionefforts. Jacks on , 732 So. 2d at

191. 9 pr es entcl ai m s orf

act s i n hi s ear l i erPC R pet i t i on. G r ays on ar gues thatthe f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de the ef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el i n PC R pr ocee di ngs vi ol at es hi s r i ght s t o due pr oces s and
a c c e ss to th e c o u rts. T h e S tate arg u e s th a t th e re is no rig h t to th e e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f p o stconvi ct i on couns el . T he St at e cont ends thatG r ays on cannotm eetany excep t i ons t o the pr ocedur al bar s , and hi s PC R m ot i on s houl d be di s m i s s ed. ¶14. The St at e i s c orr ectthatthi s Courtha s notr ecogni zed a gener al r i ghtt o the ef f ect i ve as s i st ance of P C R couns el i n every cr i m i nal cas e. H ow ever , w e have acknow l edged that death- penal ty cas es ar e di f f er ent . W e have s ai d thatthe dea th- penal ty pet i t i oneri s “ent i t l ed t o appoi nt ed com

petent and cons ci ent i ous couns el t o as s i s th i m w i th hi s pur s ui tof pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef

. ” P u c k e tt , 834 So. 2d at680 ( emphasi s added) . O url aw s pr ovi de that
an ac cus ed s hal l have “ r epr es ent at i on avai l abl e atevery cr i t i cal s t age of the pr ocee di ng agai ns thi m w her e a subs t ant i al ri ghtm ay be af f ect ed. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99-15- 15 ( R ev. 2007) . A nd beca us e thi s C our tha s r ecogni zed thatPC R pr ocee di ngs a r e a cr i t i cal s t age of the d ea th-p en alty ap p ea l pro ce ss at th e state l ev el, t o d ay w e m ak e c lear tha t PC R p eti ti o n ers w h o a re u n d e r a se n ten c e o f d e a th d o h a v e a rig h t to th e e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f P C R c o u n se l. J a ck so n v. S ta te , 7 3 2 S o . 2 d 1 8 7 , 1 9 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ) ; Ch a m b e rlin , 55 So. 3d at1049. 2

### 10

Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e S t a t e ’ s a r g u me n tth a tth e r e i s n o r i g h tt o t h e e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

P CR
c o u n se l in d e a th -p e n a lty c a se s is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶15. H avi ng det erm i ned thatG r ays on had a r i ghtt o the ef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

PC R couns el dur i ng hi s or i gi nal PC R pr ocee di ngs , w e now m us tdet erm i ne w hethertha tr i ghtw as vi ol at ed. I f

i tw as vi ol at ed, then G r ays on’ s f i r s tPC R mot i on w as a s ham, and he w as deni ed an opportuni ty t o pr es enta mer i t or i ous PC R m ot i on. T h e test for ine ffecti v e a ssist an ce of co u n sel i s w ell -sett led. “T h e b en ch m ark forj ud ging an y cl ai m o f i neff ect i ven ess m ustb e w hethercou nsel ' s cond uct s o underm i ned the pr operf unct i oni ng of

the adve r s ar i al pr oces s thatthe tr i al cannotbe r el i ed on as havi ng pr odu ced a jus tr es ul t . ” Str i ckland v. W as hington , 4 6 6 U . S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 6 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 20 5 2 , 80 L . E d . 2d 67 4 (19 8 4 ). In or dert o pr evai l on an i nef f ect i ve- as s i s t ance - of

- couns el cl ai m , a def

endant m us tf i r s tpr ove thathi s couns el w as def i ci ent , w hich requi r es s how i ng that “couns el m ade e rr or s s o s eri ou s t hat[ he ors he w as ] notf unct i oni ng as the ‘ couns el ’ gua r ant eed the def endantby the Si xth A m endment . ” Id . at687, 104 S. C t . 2052. S econdl y, a def endantm us tprove t hatt he “de f i ci entper f

orm ance p rejud iced the d efe n se,” w h ich re q u ir es sh o w ing that “c o u n sel’s errors w ere so se rio u s a s to d e p riv e th e d e fe n d a n t o f a fa ir trial, a tr ial w h o se re su lt i s r el i abl e. ” Id . A b se n t b o th sh o w in g s, a d e fe n d a n t m a y n o t p re v a il o n h is c laim th a t h is c o u n s e l w a s in e ff e c tiv e . Id . T hi s C our tm us t“‘ s tr ongl y pr es um e thatcouns el ' s c onductf al l s w i thi n a w i de r ange of r eas onabl e pr of

es s i onal as s i s t ance , and the cha l l enged a ctorom i s s i on m ig h t b e c o n sid e re d so u n d trial s tra teg y . In o th e r w o rd s, d e fe n se c o u n se l is pr e s umedc ompe t ent . ’ ” L idde ll v. S ta te , 7 S o . 3 d 2 1 7 , 2 1 9

– 2 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ). A n d e v e n w h e re p ro fe ss io n a l er ro r is p ro v e n , th is C o u rt m u st d e ter m in e if there i s a “r easona ble probab i l i ty that, b ut f or coun sel ' s unp rof

essi on al err ors, th e re su lt o f th e p ro c e e d in g s w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. A re a so n a b le p ro b a b ility is a p ro b a b ility s u f f ic ie n t t o u n d e rm in e c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tc o m e .” Mo h r v . S ta te , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 4 2 6 , 4 3 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). Ch a m b e rlin , 55 So. 3d at1050.

### 11

¶ 1 6 . B y o rd e r e n ter e d o n A p ril 1 0 , 2 0 0 2 , th e C irc u it C o u rt o f G e o rg e C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i,
a p p o in ted th e M iss iss ip p i O ffic e o f C a p ital P o st-C o n v ictio n C o u n se l (M O C P C C ) to
r epr es entG r ays on i n hi s P C R proc eedi ngs . O n A pr i l 22, 2002, R obertM . R yan, di r ect orof th e M O C P C C , fil e d h is e n try o f a p p e a ra n c e a s c o u n se l fo r G ra y s o n w ith th is C o u rt, s ubs equent l y f

i l i ng G r ays on’ s f

i r s tPC R m ot i on and suppl ement al m ot i on. O n J ul y 11, 2005, R y a n e x e c u ted a n a ffid a v it, w h ich is a ttac h e d to G ra y so n ’s c u rre n t p lea d in g s, d e sc rib in g h is
r epr es ent at i on of

G r ays on i n det ai l . R yan des cr i bed how the M O C PC C w as under s t af f ed,
u n d e rfu n d e d a n d o v e rw o rk e d . H e e x p lain e d th a t n u m e ro u s P C R p e tit io n s w e re d u e w ith in
a s hor tper i od of

t i m e. H e s t at ed thatm i ni m al , i f any, i nves t i gat i on, r es ear ch, and eva l uat i on w er e conduc t ed pr i ort o f i l i ng the PC R pet i t i ons . R yan s t at ed that , as of J anuary 2003 – aboutone mont h bef

or e G rayson’s PC R pet i t i on w as due – he w as the onl y att orney em ployed b y the M O C P C C an d h ad d on e no thing i n G rayson’s cas e. R yan ’s aff i dav i tst at es, in p a rt: 16. D ur i ng a l l of thi s tr ans i t i on i n e ar l y 2003, the w al l s cave d i n on num er ous c a s e s i n whi c h the c ou r tde c l i ne d t o g r a nte xt e ns i on s ort o r e l i e ve the O f f i ce fr om the cases. A s i s r efl ect ed i n the at t ached ch art , I had to f i l e nine cases .

. . b e tw e e n F e b ru a ry 1 4 , 2 0 0 3 , an d M a y 1 , 2 0 0 3 , in w h ic h n o o n e h a d re a lly had the opportuni ty t o l ook at , l etal one i nves t igat e orr es ear ch , p rio r to January 1, 2 00 3, altho ug h I had read t he transcr i pts w hen the cases w ere f i rs t as s i gned t o the O f

f i ce. 1 7 . T h re e o f t h e s e c a s e s , G r ays on , Si m m ons , and K nox w er e f i l ed on t he s a m e d a y , F e b ru a ry 1 4 , 2 0 0 3 , w i th m e havi ng t o rel y on tr ans cr i

pts um m ar i es becaus e I

di d n ot have t i m e to eve n go back and r ead the tr ans cr i pt s agai n. I al s o di d not

hav e t i m e t o f

i l e f undi ng r eques t

s , conduct

a f ul li nves t igat i on, o ra de q u a te ly r e s e a r c h th e is s u e s . . . .

### 12

18. W i th G r ayson . . . on O ct ober21, 2002, I r eques t ed an e xt ens i on f r om February 14, 2003 t o J une 16, 2003, be caus e I w as “s i m pl y unabl e t o acti n an ethi cal m anner ” due t o otherdut i es . T he courtgave me onl y unt i l February 14, 2003, t o f

i l e. O n J anuary 30, 2 00 3, I f i l ed anotherr eques tf

oran ext ens i on in fo rm in g th e c o u rt th a t I w a s th e o n ly a tto rn e y in th e o ffic e b e c a u se D a v id V o is in h a d re s ig n e d a n d T e rr i M a rr o q u in h a d b e e n d is c h a rg e d . I h a d so lit tle i nf or m at i on on the cas e thatI was unable t o e ven ci t e cas e s peci f i c r eas ons f

or th e n e e d f o ra dd i t i o n a lt i me . A gai n, the mot i on w as deni ed. 1 9 . In a d d it ion , sp ec if

ic t o G ray so n , . . . w e d id n o t f il e a n y requ ests for e x p ert as s i s t ance an d had conduct ed ver y l i t t l e i nves t igat i on . A s the M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our teven poi nt ed outi n i t s opi ni on denyi ng re l i ef , w e w er e unabl e, due t o the l ack of

t i m e, t o even interview the trial co u n se l on the ca s e and o b ta in a n a ff

id a v it f ro m h im . . . . (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶ 1 7 . G ra y so n o ffe rs affid a v its fro m se v e ra l e m p lo y e e s o f th e M O C P C C in su p p o rt o f h is cl ai m s . Thes e af

f i davi t s r evea l thatmi ni m al i nves t i gat i on i nt o G r ays on’ s PC R c l ai m s w as conduct ed a f

ew days bef

or e the PC R m ot i on w as due. T he on l y i nves t i gat i on conduct ed pr i ort o f i l i ng the pet i t i on w er e a f ew phone ca l l s t o j ur or s w ho w oul d notdi s cus s the ca s e, o n e re q u e st fo r re c o rd s – w h ich w e re n o t re c e iv e d – a n d b rie f in ter v iew s w ith a n d a ffid a v its f r om f ourof G r ays on’ s f

ami l y m ember s . T he M O C PC C di d notconductany i ndepende nt di s covery ori nves t i gat i on and di d nots eek e xpertas s i s t ance . C ouns el f orG r ays on di d not obt ai n the f

i l es f r om t he pr os ecut or , fr om l aw enf or cement , orf

r om the St at e’ s expert s , even though couns el w as ent i t l ed t o thes e f i l es pur s uantt o R ule 22( c) ( 4) ( i i ) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R u les o f A p p ell ate P roc ed u re. T ri al co u n sel w as n ev er interv iew ed . E v en tho u g h the C o u rt al l ow ed s i xty addi t i onal days t o f i l e a s uppl ement al P C R , no addi t i onal i nves t i gat i on w as c o n d u c ted . T h is C o u rt f o u n d th e iss u e s ra ise d in th e P C R p lea d in g s w e re “ v irtu a lly

### 13

id e n tic a l” to th o s e a s s e rt e d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. G r ays on II, 8 7 9 S o . 2 d at 10 1 2 . T h is C o u rt
n o te d th e la c k o f e v id e n tia ry s u p p o rtfo r m a n y o f t h e c la im s . I d. at1016. ¶18. PC R pr ocee di ngs i n death- penal ty cas es ar e a c r i t i c a l s t a ge of the de a th- pe nal ty appea l p ro c e ss at th e sta te le v e l. Ja ckson , 7 3 2 S o . 2 d a t 1 9 1 ; Ch a m b e rlin , 5 5 S o . 3 d at 10 4 9 . In Jacks on , thi s C our thel d: in d ig e n t d e a th ro w in m a tes a re sim p ly n o t ab le, o n the ir o w n , to c o m p e ten tly engage i n thi s type of

l i t i gat i on. A ppl i cat i ons f orpost - convi ct i on re l i ef of t en rai s e i s s ues w hi ch r equi r e inve sti g a ti o n , a n a lysis a n d

p rese n tati o n o

f f a cts ou t si de the ap

pellate r ecord . The i nm at e i s c onf i ned, una bl e t o i nves t i gat e, and of t en w i thouttr ai ning i n the l aw orthe ment al abi l i ty t o compre hend the r e q u i r e me n t s o f

th e UP CC RA . I d. at190 ( emphasi s added) . T he pet i t i onerm us tpr oper l y s uppor thi s PC R cl ai m s w i th l egal argum ent s and evi dence orr i s k a f utur e f i ndi ng thatthe cl ai m s ar e pr ocedur al l y barr ed. M iss . C o d e A n n . § § 9 9 -3 9 -5 (1 ); 9 9 -3 9 -9 ; 9 9 -3 9 -2 7 (9 ) (S u p p . 2 0 1 2 ); R u s s e ll v. S ta te , 819 So. 2d 1177, 1178- 79 ( M i s s . 2001) . A thor ough re vi ew of the di r ect - appea l re cor d, t he pr i or PC R pl eadi ngs , and the exhi bi t s off er ed by G r ays on i n supportof hi s curr entpos t - convi ct i on m o tio n re v e a l th a t R y a n ’s p e rfo rm a n c e in th e first P C R p ro c e e d in g s w a s d e fic ien t. Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U . S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 5 2 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 (19 8 4 ). ¶19 . Forthe s econd pr ong of an i nef f ect i ve- as s i s t a nc e- of

- couns el cl ai m , w e must det erm i ne w h e th e r c o u n s e l’ s d e fi c ie n t p e rf o rm a n c e p re

ju d ic e d th e p e titio n e r. I d. In o th e r w o rd s, “ th is C o u rtm u st de term ine if th e re is a ‘reaso n ab le pro b ab il ity that, b u t f o r co u n sel’s
u n p ro fe ss io n a l er ro rs, th e re su lt o f th e p ro c e e d in g s w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. A re a so n a b le pr obabi l i ty i s a pr obabi l i ty s uf fi ci ent t o u nd erm i ne co nfi dence i n the out come. ’ ” Ch a m b e rlin ,

### The one -ye ar timebar . 3 

### The s ucc es sive- writ bar. 4 

### Throughout

theState ’s response , it als o argues that Grays on’s cl aims are barred 5 

### pursuant to S ection9 9 -3 9 -23 (6) o f the M ississipp i Co de. S ection99 -39 -23 app lies on ly when an evi dentiar

y hearing has bee n conduc te d. Sincetherehas bee n no evi dentiary hearin g inthis case, S ection99 -39 -23 (6) o f the M ississipp i Co de simp ly d oes n ot app ly in thi s c as e. 14 55 S o. 3d at1050 ( quot i ng Mohr , 584 So. 2d at430) . I f any of G r ays on’ s pr es entcl ai m s f or r el i ef ar e mer i t or i ous , then he s uf f er ed pr ej udi ce. I f

thes e cl ai m s l ack mer i t , then ther e w as no pr ej udi ce. W e mustpr ocee d t o a cons i der at i on of the cl ai m s r ai s ed. G r ays on asser t

s thathis death s entence m us tbe vac at ed, purs uantt o the E igh th a ndFour teenth A m endm ents t o the U nited S tates C on st i t uti on , beca use th e ju ry in se n ten c in gw a s n o t in str u c tedth a t it c o u ld c o n sid e r a ny a n d

a ll m iti g a ti n gev iden ce b ey o n d tha t spe cif

ically en u m era ted in the c o u rt’s i nstruct i on s. ¶20. G r ays on cont ends that the j ury w as not pr oper l y i ns truct ed that i t m us t cons i derany m i t i gat i on e vi dence pr es ent ed. G r ays on ar gues that , i f the j ury f

ai l s t o cons i derm i t i gat i ng evi dence , ther e i s an unac cept abl e r i s k thatthe death penal ty w i l l be i m pos ed i n s pi t e of f act or s w hi ch w arr anta l es s s ever e penal ty. G r ays on ar gues thathi s death s ent ence m us tbe
r ever s ed bec aus e i tvi ol at es hi s r i ght s underthe Ei ghth and Four t eenth A m endment s t o the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. ¶21. T he St at e ar gues that thi s cl ai m i s barr ed f r om cons i der at i on by Sect i ons 99- 39- 5( 2) 3 and 9 9-39-27 (9) o f the M i ssi ssi pp i C od e. T he S t at e al so argues that G rayson fai l ed to r ai se 4 5 thi s cl ai m attr i al oron di r ecta ppeal a nd thatthe cl ai m i s barr ed pur s uantt o Sect i on 99- 39- 21( 1) of the M i s s i s s i ppi Code. G r ays on f ai l s t o a ddr es s the pr ocedur al bar s f ound i n Sect i on

### 15

9 9 -3 9 -2 1 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o d e . S e c tio n 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o d e sta tes , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: ( 1) Fai l ur e by a pr i s onert o r ai s e obj ect i ons , def ens es , cl ai m s , ques t i ons , i s s ues orerr or s ei theri n f

actorl aw w hi ch w er e capabl e of det erm i nat i on attr i al and/ oron di r ecta ppeal , r egar dl es s of w hethers uch ar e bas ed on the l aw s and th e C o n stitu tio n o f th e sta te o f M iss iss ip p i o r o f th e U n ited S tate s, sh a ll cons t i tut e a w ai verther eof a nd s hal l be pr ocedur al l y barr ed, butthe courtm ay u p o n a sh o w ing o f ca u se a n d ac tual p rejud ice g ran t r eli ef from the w aive r.

. . . (4 ) T h e ter m “ c a u se ” a s u se d in th is s e c tio n sh a ll b e d e fin e d a n d lim ite d to thos e ca s es w her e the l egal f oundat i on upon w hi ch the cl ai m f orr el i ef i s bas ed coul d nothave be en di s cover ed w i th r eas onabl e di l i gence atthe t i m e of tr i al o r d ire c t ap p e a l. ( 5) T he t erm “ac tual pr ej udi ce” as u sed i n thi s s ect i on s hal l be def i ned and l i m i t ed t o thos e err or s w hi ch w oul d have a ctual l y adver s el y af f ect ed the ul t i m at e out come of

the convi ct i on ors ent ence . (6) T h e b u rde n is up o n the p ri so n er to a ll eg e in h is m o ti o n su ch fac ts as are n e c e ss a ry to d e m o n stra te th a t his cla im s a re n o t p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d u n d e r th is s ect i on. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 21 (Rev. 2007). G r ays on’ s cl ai m re gar di ng t he j ury i ns truct i ons w as capabl e of

det erm i nat i on attr i al a nd on di r ectappea l . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 21( 1) (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ); Ho w a rdv. Sta te , 9 4 5 S o . 2 d 3 2 6 , 3 6 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e trial tra n sc rip t re v e a ls thatco un sel forG r ays on di d notobj ectt o the j ury i ns truct i ons aboutw hi ch G r ays on now c o m p lain s. A d d iti o n a lly , G ra y so n d id n o t a ss e rt a n y c laim s re g a rd in g ju ry in stru c tio n s in h is d ir e c t a p p e a l. G r ay s on I, 806 So. 2d at244. T hi s cl ai m i s w ai ved unl es s G r ays on can s how “ca us e” a nd “ac tual pr ej udi ce” as def i ned i n the s t atut e. Si nce “ the l egal f oundat i on upon wh i c h th e c l a i m f

o rr e l i e f i s b a s e d ” wa s d i s c o v e r a b l e “ wi th r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e a tth e t i me

### 16

of tr i al ordi r ectappea l , ” G r ays on cannots how “ca us e. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39 -21(4) (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e s ta tu te re q u ir e s G ra y s o n to s h o w b o th “ c a u s e ” a n d “ a c tu a l p re ju d ic e .” Si nce G r ays on cannots how “ca us e, ” the cl ai m i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (1 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ); W iley v. S ta te , 750 So. 2d 1193, 1210 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng Fos ter v. S ta te , 6 8 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 4 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )). ¶22. Pr ocedur al barnotw i ths t andi ng, thi s cl ai m does notent i t l e G r ays on t o re l i ef . W e have
s t at ed: I n the s ent enci ng phas e of a capi t al m ur dertr i al , the s t akes ar e l i f e and de ath. A d e fe n d a n t is p e rm itt e d to in tro d u c e v irtu a lly a n y re lev a n t an d re liab le e v i d e n c e t o u c h i n g u p o n th e d e f e n d a n t ' s b a c k g r o u n d a n d c h a r a c t e r , o rth e c r i me i t sel f, w hich i s off

ered as a basi s t o p ers uad e a j ury t o return a sentence of l ess than dea th. W e ca ut i on pr os ecut or s and tr i al j udges aboutl i m i t i ng m i t i gat i on e v id e n c e o ffe re d b y a d e fe n d a n t w h e n it is p re se n ted fa irly , a n d is re lev a n t to the def endant ' s char act er , backgr ound, orthe ci r cumst ances surr oundi ng the cr i m e. F u lg h a m v. S ta te , 46 So. 3d 315, 336 ( M i s s . 2010) . D ur i ng the sent enci ng pr ocee di ng, “evi dence m ay be pr es ent ed as t o any m att ert hatthe courtdeems r el evantt o s ent ence , and
s hal l i ncl ude mat t er s r el at i ng t o any of the aggr avat i ng orm i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s . . . . T he
s t at e and the def

endantand/ orhi s couns el s hal l be perm i t t ed t o pr es entar gum ent s f oror agai ns tthe s ent ence of

death. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 101( 1) ( R ev. 2007) . A f t erhear i ng al l the ev i den ce, the jury is requi red t o c o n side r w hetherm i t i gati ng ci rcum st ances ex i st
w h ich o u tw eigh the a g g rav ati n g c ir cu m stan ce s. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -19 -10 1 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶23. G r ays on as s ert s t hat t he j ury w as gi ven onl y tw o al l egedl y i nadequa t e i ns truct i ons re g a rd in g th e c o n sid era ti o n o f m iti g a tio n e v id e n c e . In stru c tio n S -2 A sta ted , in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

### 17

Y ou have f

ou nd the D ef

endantgui l ty of

the cr i m e of

C api t al M ur der . Y ou m ustno w decide w hetherthe D efendan tw i l l be sentenced to death or l if e im p ri s o n m e n t. I n re a c h in g y o u r d e c is io n , you m ay obj ect i vel y cons i derthe detai l ed ci r cum s tances of the of f ens e f orw hi ch the D ef

endant w as convi cted, a n d th e c h a ra c tera n d

r e c o rdo f th e D e fen da n t h im se lf

. Y ou s houl d cons i der a n d w e ig h an y ag g ra v a tin g an d m iti g a tin g circ u m sta n c e s, as se t fo rth late r in th is in stru c tio n , b u t y o u a re c a u tio n e d n o t to b e sw a y e d b y m e re se n tim e n t, conj ectur e, s ym pathy, pas s i on, pr ej udi ce, publ i c opi ni on, orpubl i c f eel i ng.

. . . [ The j ury was i ns truc t e d r e ga r di ng the f a c t or s f ou nd i n Se c t i on 99- 19- 1 0 1 (7 ) o f t h e M is s is s ip p i C o d e .] N extt o r eturn the dea th penal ty, you m us tf i nd thatthe m i t i gat i ng circu m sta n c e s – tho se w h ich ten d to w arran t th e less se v ere p en alty o f l if e i m pr i s onm ent– do notoutw ei gh the aggr avat i ng c i r cumst ance s – thos e w hi ch t end t o w arr antthe dea th penal ty.

. . . [ T he j ury w as i ns truct ed r egar di ng the appl i cabl e s t atut ory aggr avat i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s .] I f one ormore of

the above aggr avat i ng c i r cumst ance s i s f ound t o exi s t , then you m us tcons i derw hetherther e ar e mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s w hi ch outw ei gh the aggr avat i ng ci rcumst ance ( s ) . C ons i derthe f ol l ow i ng el ement s of m i t i gat i on i n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe dea th penal ty s houl d notbe i m pos ed: ( 1) W hetherthe capaci ty of the D ef endantt o appr eci at e the cr i m i nal i ty of

hi s conductw as s ubs t ant i al l y i m pai r ed. ( 2) T he age of

the D ef endantatthe t i m e of

the cr i m e. I f you fi nd fr om the evi dence thatone orm or e of the pr ece di ng el ement s of m i t i gat i on exi s t s , then you m us tconsi derw hetheri t( orthey) outw ei gh( s ) or ov e r c ome( s ) the aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance ( s ) thatyou pr evi ous l y f ound. I n the eventthatyou f

i nd the mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance ( s ) do notoutw ei gh or o v e rc o m e th e a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e (s) , y o u m a y im p o se th e d e a th p e n a lty s en t e nc e . Sho ul d yo u f i nd tha tthe mi t i ga t i ng c i r c ums t a nc e ( s ) o utw e i gh or o v e rc o m e th e a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e (s) , y o u sh a ll n o t im p o se th e d e a th s ent ence . T he ver di ctyou r eturn m us tbe w r i t t en on a s epar at e s heetof papers i gned by th e fo re m a n . . . .

### 18

( E m phas i s added. ) I ns truct i on D - 2( A ) s t at ed: T he C our ti ns truct s the j ury t hat you m ay cons i derthe f ol l ow i ng m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s w hen cons i der i ng yours ent enci ng opt i on: 1. T he capaci ty of

the def endantt o appr eci at e the cr i m i nal i ty of hi s conductw as s ubs t ant i al l y i m pai r ed. 2. T he age of

the def endantatthe t i m e of

the cr i m e. G ra y so n a rg u e s th a t, b a se d o n the se ins tru c tio n s, th e ju ro rs m a y h a v e b e liev e d th a t th e y c o u ld
n o t tak e in to c o n sid e ra tio n a n y m iti g a tio n e v id e n c e o th e r th a n e v id e n c e re g a rd in g h is capa ci ty t o appr eci at e the cr i m i nal i ty of hi s cr i m e and hi s age atthe t i m e of the cr i m e. G r ays on ar gues thatthe t es t i m ony of hi s m otherand gr andmot herw oul d ha ve been gi ven no e ffe c t o r c o n sid e ra tio n b y th e ju ry , b e c a u se th a t tes tim o n y d id n o t, fo r th e m o st p a rt, rela te to h is m en tal stat e o r his ag e a t th e ti m e o f th e c ri m e. G ray so n arg u es th at th e jury sh o u ld have be en gi ven a c at ch- al l i ns truct i on di r ect i ng the j ury t o cons i derand w ei gh al l of the evi dence pr es ent ed i n m i t i gat i on. G r ays on as s ert s thathi s death s ent ence m ustbe vac at ed
on this basi s. ¶24. W e cons i der ed a s i m i l arar gum enti n J o rda n v. Sta te an d reco g n ized th at th is C o u rt has appr oved the f

ol l ow i ng cat ch- al l i ns truct i on deal i ng w i th the cons i der at i on of m i t i gat i ng evi dence : C ons i derthe f

ol l ow i ng el ement s of

m i t i gat i on i n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe death penal ty s houl d no tb e i m pos ed: A ny m att er– any otheras pectof the def endant ' s char act erorr ecor d, any otherci r cumst ance s of the of f ens e br ought t o you dur i ng the tr i al of thi s caus e w hi ch you, t he j ury, deem t o be mi t i gat i ng o n b e h a lf o f th e d e fe n d a n t.

### The us e of thest andard c atch- al l instruc ti on is enc ouraged. 6 

### 19 Jor dan , 912 So. 2d 800, 820 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng S c o tt v. S ta te , 87 8 S o. 2d 93 3, 98 3 (M i ss. 2 0 0 4 )) . W e h e ld : “ [e ]v e n th o u g h th e ju ry d id n o t g e t a sta n d a rd c a tc h -a ll in s tru c tio n . . . , 6 ta k in gthe in str u c tio n s a s a w h o le , t he j ury w as i ns truct ed thati ts houl d cons i derand w ei gh al l of the evi dence i n m i t i gat i on of puni s hm ent . ” I

d. at 82 0 -21 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶25 . G rayson’s j ury al so w as gi ven Instruct i on S -1, w hich st at es: T he C our ti ns truct s t he Jury t hati tm us tbe em phas i zed thatt he pr ocedur e that you m us tf

ol l ow i s nota mer e count i ng process of a ce r t ai n num berof agg ravat i ng ci rcum st ances v ers u s the nu m ber of m i t i gati ng ci rcum st ances. R a th e r, you m us tappl

y yourr eas oned judgm ent as t o w hetherthis s i t uat i on c a lls fo r life imp r is o n m e n t o r w h e th e r it re q u ire s th e im p o sitio n o

f de a th , in l ightof the total i t

y of the ci r cum s tances pr es ent . ( E m phas i s added. ) T aki ng G r ays on’ s j ury i ns truct i ons as a w hol e, “w e ca nnotc oncl ude that th e ju ry w a s u n c o n s titu tio n a lly fo re c lo s e d fr o m c o n s id e ri n g a ll m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” B e rr y v. S ta te , 7 0 3 S o . 2 d 2 6 9 , 2 8 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); s ee al s o B e rr y v. Sta te , 882 So. 2d 157, 1 6 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶26. H ad G r ays on r ai s ed thi s cl ai m i n hi s f i r s tPC R m ot i on, re l i ef

w oul d have be en deni ed. T her ef or e, R yan’ s f

ai l ur e t o r ai s e thi s clai m in the or i gi nal PC R pr ocee di ngs di d not p re ju d ice G ra y s o n . Str i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 20 5 2 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 . T h is cl ai m does notm eetan exc ept i on t o the pr ocedur al bar s and s houl d be di s m i s s ed. G r ays on as s er t

s thathis death s entence m us tbe vac at ed underthe Eighth and Fo u rteen th A m en dm en ts to the U n itedS tates C o n sti tuti o n , b ec a u se G ra yso n ’s ju ry w a s n o t a de q u a tely in str u c tedth a t G ra y so n w o u ld

b e in e lig ib le fo r p a ro le if se n ten c e d

to lif e im p ris o n m e n t.

### 20

¶2 7 . G ray so n arg u es th at th e jury h ad to b e ins tru cted that if G ray so n w as se n tenc ed to li fe i n pr i s on, hi s s ent ence w ou l d be w i thoutpar ol e. G r ays on cont ends thatthe j ury w as not
a d e q u a tely in stru c ted a n d th a t itm a y h a v e m isu n d e rsto o d th e p o ss ib le s e n ten c e s. T h e S tate p o in ts o u t th a t t h is c laim w a s c a p a b le o f d e ter m in a tio n a t trial o r o n d ire c t ap p e a l an d is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d . M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (1 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ); W iley , 750 So. 2d at1208 ( ci t i ng Fos ter , 6 8 7 S o . 2 d at 11 4 0 ). ¶28. Pr ocedur al barnotw i ths t andi ng, the j ury w as gi ven the f ol l ow i ng i ns truct i on: T he C our ti ns truct s the j ury thatyou ar e underno ob l i gat i on t o i m pos e the death penal ty. T hati s s i m pl y one opt i on. Y ou m ay al s o cons i dera s ent ence of l i f e, w i thoutpar ol e. A d d iti o n a lly , G ra y s o n ’s tria l co u n se l d isc u ss e d “ life w ith o u t p a ro le” a t len g th d u rin g h is
c lo sin g a rg u m e n t. ¶29. G r ays on cont ends thatthe j ury i ns truct i on w as i ns uf f i ci entand thathi s death s ent ence m u st b e v a c a ted . W e d isa g re e . T h e ju ry w a s in fo rm e d ad e q u a tely tha t a life s e n ten c e w o u ld b e w ith o u t p a ro le . T h is c la im is w ith o u t m e ri t. See J o r da n v . S ta te, 918 So. 2d 636, 651 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). ¶ 3 0 . S i n c e th i s c l a i m l a c k s me r i t , Ry a n ’ s f a i l u r e t o r a i s e th i s c l a i m i n t h e o r i g i n a l P CR p ro c e e d in g s d id n o t p re

ju d ic e G ra y s o n . Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U. S. a t6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S. Ct . 2 0 5 2 , 8 0 L. E d. 2d 674. T hi s cl ai m does notm eetan exc ept i on t o the pr ocedur al bar s and s houl d be di s m i s s ed. G ra y so n a rg u e s th a t his rig h ts u n d e r th e S ixth a n d Fo u rte e n th A m e n dm e n ts of the U ni t ed Stat es C ons t i t ut i on w er e vi olat ed, i n thathe w as depr i ved of the

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 99-39- 21(3) (Re v. 2007) . 7 

### 21 e ffec tive a ss ista n c e o

f c o u n se l a t b o th th e g u ilt-o r-in n o c e n c e a n d p e n a lty s tages of the tr i aland on di r ect

appeal . ¶ 3 1 . Att r i a l , G r a y s o n w a s r e p r e s e n t e d by D a v i d M . I s h e e of Pa s c a g o u l a a n d W i l l i a m T. B ai l ey Sr . of

Lucedal e. I s hee al s o r epr es ent ed G r ays on i n hi s di r ectappea l . G r ays on ar gues that“[ c] ouns el atal l s t ages f el l bel ow the s t andar d of e f f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el as s et f or th i n Str i ckland v. W

as hington ”and cont ends thatc ouns el r ender ed i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance i n f our t een a r eas . T he St at e argu es thatal l of G r ays on’ s cl ai m s ar e pr ocedur al l y barr ed pur s uantt o Sect i ons 99- 39- 5( 2) ( t i m e bar) an d 99-39- 27( 9) ( s ucce s s i ve- w r i tbar ) of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode. A ddi t i onal l y, the St at e as s ert s thatthes e “c l ai m s w er e ei therdi s pos ed of on pr i orr evi ew and ar e ther ef or e re s ju d ica ta , or they cons t i tut e si m i l arcl ai m s r ai s ed under 7 a di f f er entl egal theory a nd a r e ther ef or e barr ed by [ Sect i on 99- 39- 21( 2) of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode, ] ” orthey w er e capabl e of bei ng r ai s ed attri al o r on dir ectappea l and ar e barr ed by Sect i on 99- 39- 21( 1) of

the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode. W e cons i dereac h cl ai m r ai s ed. 1. Fai l ur e to t i m el

y and adequatel

y s upp or tthe f

undi ng m ot i on f

oran i nves t igat ort o i nt er vi ew a pot ent i al l y ex cul pat or y w i tnes s i n D ade C o u n ty, F lo rida , re la tedto th e g u ilt-o r-in n o c e n c e issu e s, a n d failu re to adequatel

y pr es er ve this is s ue at

tr i alf orpr es entat i on on appeal ¶32. G rayson’s defense t heo ry attr i al w as thatJ as on K i l patr i ck ki l l ed Sm i th and that G r ays on’ s conf

es s i on w as coer ced a nd w as f al se. G r ays on now agues that , des pi t e the im p o rta n c e o f in v e stig a tin g K ilp a tric k , tri a l co u n se l d id n o t tak e a d e q u a te s tep s to o b tain

### The rec ord reve al s that Kilpatri ck was transpor te d to George County pri or to thetrial 8 

### andreturn ed to Flo rida upo n its co nclu sion . Neith er Gray sonno r the State called him as a witn ess. Th e crime occurred inMay19 96 . Kilp atrick c ou ld n ot h ave co nfessedto a crime 9 

### that had not ye t ha

ppene d. 22 f undi ng t o i nves t i gat e K i l patr i ck. G r ays on poi nt s outthattr i al couns el r eques t ed f undi ng 8 f ori nves t i gat i ve as s i s t ance f ourt i m es . T he tr i al courtgrant ed l i m i t ed f unds f orone inv esti g ator. G ray so n arg u ed o n d ir ec t app ea l th at th e d en ial o f fun d ing w as re v ersible e rror. W e conc l uded that t he tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n denyi ng the mot i ons f or fu n d s . G r ay s on I, 806 So. 2d at254- 55. ¶33. G r ays on now ar gues that couns el f ai l ed adequa t el y t o pr es ent s uf f i ci enti nf orm at i on t o the tr i al c our ta nd the appel l at e courta nd f ai l ed adequa t el y t o pr es erve thi s i s s ue f ordi r ect app eal . G rayson assert s that, had cou nsel provided co ncret e reas on s t o sup po rtthe requ est s, “ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty thatthe tr i al courtw oul d have a uthor i zed f undi ng and that G r ays on w oul d have de vel oped and pr es ent ed evi dence r egar di ng K i l patr i ck’ s r ol e i n the of f e ns e . ” H e f

urthe ra s s e r t s tha tthe r e i s a r e a s on a bl e p r ob a bi l i ty tha tthe r e s ul t s of t he p ro c e e d in g s w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. ¶ 3 4 . In s u p p o rt o f t h is c la im , G ra y so n o ffe rs th e aff id a v it o f R ich a rd D a le R o g e rs , a pr i s oners ervi ng a l i f

e s ent ence in F l ori da. T he af f i davi tw as exec ut ed on A pr i l 22, 2005. R oger s s t at es thati n 1995 K i l patr i ck w as h i s cel l m at e and K i l patr i ck t ol d hi m “how the 9
c rim e h a p p e n e d .” R o g e rs’ s a ffid a v it state s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

### 23

H e a n d G ray so n w en t to th e v ict im ’s ho u se a n d w ere tal k ing w ith h er. K ilp a trick to o k h e r to th e re stro o m in h e r w h e e lch a ir a n d p u sh e d h e r in w h ile G r ays on w as goi ng thr ough the hous e. W hen s he tr i ed t o getout , he gr abbed herchai rand t i pped i toverand bent on e o f the w heel s . She f

el l outand banged he rhead pr etty har d. She w as knocked out . She came t o and s t art ed scre am ing . T h e n ex t th ing h e k n ew h e h ad b loo d all o v er h im an d ev ery w h ere and the kni f

e w as i n hi s hand. G r ays on had bee n carryi ng thi ngs outt o the carw hi l e thi s w as goi ng on. T hey gota s hot gun, j ew el ry, notm uch ca s h and s om e ant i que thi ngs. T hey w ent back t o Pens acol a t o s el l the s tuff . T here w as campi ng equi pm ent , t oo. K i l patr i ck al s o t ol d m e he putthe kni f e i n the bac kyar d nearthe por ch. ¶35. G r ays on i s at t empt i ng t o re cas thi s ar gum ent m ade on dir ectappeal – r egar di ng the deni al of i nves t i gat i ve f

unds – undera di f

f er entlegal theory, i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of
cou nsel . S ect i on 99 -39-21(2) of the M i ssi ssi pp i C od e provides: (2 ) T h e lit ig a tio n o f a fa c tu a l issu e a t trial a n d o n d ire c t ap p e a l o f a sp e c ific s t at e orf eder al l egal theory ortheor i es s hal l cons t i tut e a w ai ver of al l other s t at e orf eder al l egal theor i es w hi ch coul d have be en r ai s ed unders ai d f actual i s s ue; and any r el i ef

s oughtunderthi s art i cl e upon s ai d f act s butupon di f

f er ent s t at e orf eder al l egal theor i es s hal l be pr ocedur al l y barr ed abs enta s how i ng of caus e and a ctual pr ej udi ce. M i ss. C od e A nn . § 9 9-39-21 (2) (R ev . 20 07 ). T his cl ai m i s procedu ral l y b arr ed, un l ess G r ays on can s how “ca us e” and “ actual pr ej udi ce. ” See M i s s . C ode A nn. 99- 39- 21( 4) and (5) (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶36. T he s t atut ory def i ni t i on of “ac tual pr ej udi ce” and t he def i ni t i on of pr ej udi ce pur s uant t o Str i c kl

and a re s im ila r. St

r i c k la nd , 4 66 U . S . at687, 104 S. C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 674. E v en if G ray so n co u ld sh o w th a t tri al co u n sel’s pe rform an ce w as d eficien t, R o g ers’s af f i davi ti s note nough t o pr ove pr ej udi ce. A l though Roger s ’ s a f f i davi ti m pl i cat es G r ays on, Ro g e r s ’ s d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e c r i me i s n o tc o n s i s t e n twi th th e i n f o r ma t i o n a b o u tth e c r i me

### 24

f ound i n the r ecor d. A ddi t i onal l y, G r ays on conf es s ed to m ur der i ng Sm i th and pr ovi ded det ai l s w hi ch ar e cons i s t entw i th t he evi dence att he cr i m e sc ene. E ven i f R oger s ’ s hear s ay tes tim o n y h ad b ee n ad m itted in to ev iden ce , G ray so n h as fa il ed to sh o w a re aso n ab le p ro b a b ility th a t th e re s u lt o f th e p ro c e e d in g s w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if fe re n t. Ch a m b e rlin , 55 So. 3 d at 10 5 0 . T h is cl aim is p roc ed u rall y ba rred . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -21 (2) (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶ 3 7 . N o tw ith sta n d in g th e p ro c e d u ra l b a r, G ra y so n h a s fa iled to sh o w th a t h is tr ial /app e llate
cou nsel w as con st i tuti on al l y inef fect i ve. S i nce thi s cl ai m l acks m eri t , R yan ’s fai l ure t o rai se th is c la im in th e o ri g in a l P C R p ro c e e d in g s d id n o t p re ju d ic e G ra y s o n . Str i c kl and , 46 6 U. S. at687, 104 S. C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 674. T hi s cl ai m does notm eetan exc ept i on t o the pr ocedur al bar s and s houl d be di s m i s s ed. 2. Fai l ur e t o t i m el

y and adequat el

y se ek f undi ng, f ai l ur e to pr es er ve the re c o rdw ith re sp e c t to th e d e n ia l o f fu n d in gre q u e sts , failu re to otherw ise adeq ua t el

y i nvest iga t e the is sues relatedto guil t-ori nnocenc e, and f

ai l ur e to s eek

a cont i nuance ¶ 3 8 . G ra y so n n e x t a rg u e s th a t tr ial c o u n se l w a s c o n stitu tio n a lly in e ffe c tiv e fo r f a ili n g to req u est o ther fu n d s, fail ing to es tablish a rec o rd o f ex p a rte di s cus s i ons t o pr es erve the i s s ues fo r a p p e a l, an d fa ili n g to se e k a c o n tin u a n c e . G ra y so n c o n ten d s th a t co u n se l fa iled to c o n d u c t an a d e q u a te in v e stig a tio n . G ra y so n a ss e rts th a t th e fa ilu re to se c u re R ich a rd D a le R oger s ’ s t es t i m ony pr oves pr ej udi ce. ¶3 9 . W e c o n sis ten tly h a v e re c o g n ize d th a t “ c o u n sel h as a d u ty to m ak e re a so n a b le i nves t i gat i ons ort o m ake a r eas onabl e dec i s i on tha tm akes part i cul ari nves t i gat i ons unnece s s ary. ” W

il s on , 8 1 S o. 3 d at1075 ( quot i ng Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 9 1 , 1 0 4 S . C t.

### 25

2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 674) . O thert han R oger s ’ s af f i davi t , G r ays on has f

ai l ed t o of

f ers uf f i ci ent pr oof of w hataddi t i onal f

unds ora cont i nuance w oul d have yi el ded and has fa i l ed t o of f er su ffi cien t pro o f of w h at a p rop er inv estig a tio n w o u ld h av e re v ea led. B ase d o n R o g ers’s af f i davi ta l one, e ven i f

tr i al c ouns el ’ s pe r f

orm ance w as de f

i ci ent , G r ays on ha s f

ai l ed t o s how
a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty th a t th e re su lt o f th e p ro c e e d in g s w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. Ch a m b e rlin , 55 So. 3d at1050. ¶ 4 0 . G ra y so n h a s fa iled to s h o w th a t h is tr ia l/a p p e lla te c o u n s e l w a s c o n stitu tio n a lly i nef f ect i ve. S i nce t hi s cl ai m l acks m er i t , R yan’ s f ai l ur e t o r ai s e thi s cl ai m i n the or i gi nal P C R p ro c e e d in g s d id n o t p re ju d ic e G ra y s o n . Str i c kl and , 466 U . S. at687, 104 S. C t . 2052, 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 . T h is c laim d o e s n o t m e e t an e x c e p tio n to th e p ro c e d u ra l b a rs a n d sh o u ld be di s m i s s ed. 3. Fai l ur e to t i m el

y and adequat el

y i nves t igat e and pr es ent evi dence and a rg u m e n t in s u

p p o rt o f G ra y so n ’s m o tio n to su

p p re ss h is s ta tem e n ts dur i ng both the pr etr i alheari ng and i n the pr es ence of the j ur y dur i ng tr i al ¶4 1 . G ray so n arg u es that tr ial /app ell ate co u n sel fail ed ad eq u ately to asse rt that G ray so n ’s
s t at ement s s houl d have bee n s uppr es s ed bec aus e he w as deni ed hi s r i ghtt o couns el and beca us e the conf

es s i on w as i nvol unt ary. G r ays on ar gues t hathi s thr ee s t at ement s t o pol i ce w er e i nadmi s s i bl e and thatcouns el w as i nef f ect i ve i n hi s a r gum ent s a ttr i al t o s uppr es s the sta tem e n ts a n d in h is a rg u m e n ts o n d ire c t ap p e a l. ¶42. G r ays on as s ert s that he i nvoked hi s r i ght t o couns el dur i ng hi s f i r s t i nt ervi ew , thathe
w a s th e n h e ld w ith o u t co u n se l an d p lac e d o n su icid e w a tch . H e c o n ten d s p o lice v io late d h is

### 26

r i ghtt o couns el by cont i nui ng t o i nt err ogat e hi m , and any i nf orm at i on orevi dence obt ai ned fro m th e se ill e g a l in ter ro g a tio n s s h o u ld h a v e b e e n su p p re ss e d . H e a lso a ss e rts th a t h is
c o n fe ss io n w a s c o e rc e d . G ra y so n c o n ten d s th a t co u n se l’s e ffo rts a t trial a n d o n a p p e a l to
a ttac k h is s tate m e n ts w e re in a d e q u a te. G ra y so n a c k n o w led g e s th a t w e re jec ted a rg u m e n ts re g a rd in g h is s tate m e n ts o n d ire c t ap p e a l. H e a ss e rts th a t th is “ C o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n is fla tly contr adi ct ed i n a num berof r es pect s by the evi dence , w hi ch tr i al and appe l l at e couns el f ai l ed to a d e q u a te ly p re s e n t a n d a rg u e .” ¶43. O n di r ectappeal , w e cons i der ed G r ayson’ s ar gum ent s re gar di ng hi s st at ement s and
re je c te d th e m . G r ay s on I, 8 0 6 S o . 2 d a t 2 4 7 -4 9 . W e a g a in re jec ted sim ilar a rg u m e n ts in G ra y s o n ’s f

ir s t P C R p ro c e e d in g s . G rayson II, 879 So. 2d at1012- 13. G r ays on i s att empt i ng t o r eca s thi s a r gum enton di r ecta ppeal unde ra di f f er entl egal theory – i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance o f co u n sel. T h is cl aim is pro ce d u rall y b arred . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -21 (2) (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶ 4 4 . W ith o u t w a iv in g th e p ro c e d u ra l ba r, G ra y so n is n o t en tit led to re lief. G ra y so n a ss e rts i n hi s m ot i on that , af

t erhe r eques t ed cou nsel , h e di d noti ni t i at e cont actw i th the pol i ce s uf f i ci ent t o w ai ve hi s i nvocat i on of the r i ghtt o couns el . H e cont ends that , w hen he
re q u e ste d to sp e a k to o ffic e rs, it w a s fo r v e ry lim ited p u rp o se s a n d w a s n o t a w a iv e r o f h is
re q u e st fo r c o u n se l. H o w e v e r, G ra y so n fa ils to o ffe r su ffic ien t ev id e n c e in su p p o rt o f h is
as s ert i ons . I n fa ct , hi s ow n af f i davi toff er ed i n s uppor tof

hi s m ot i on does noteven ment i on the f act s surr oundi ng hi s st at ement s t o pol i ce. U pon a t hor ough re vi ew of the di r ect - appea l
r ecor d, the pr i orP C R pl eadi ngs and t he exhi bi t s off er ed by G r ays on i n supportof hi s curr ent pos t - convi ct i on m ot i on, i ti s c l earthatG r ays on ha s f ai l ed t o s how thatc ouns el ’ s per f orm ance

### 27

w a s d e fi c ie n t o r t h a t a n y s u c h d e fi c ie n c y p re ju d ic e d h is c a s e . Str i c kl and , 466 U . S. at687, 1 0 4 S . C t. 20 5 2 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 ; W a lk e r v . Sta te , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 1 , 1 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). ¶ 4 5 . S i n c e t h i s c l a i m l a c k s me r i t , Ry a n ’ s f a i l u r e t o r a i s e th i s c l a i m i n th e o r i g i n a l P CR p ro c e e d in g s d id n o t p re

ju d ic e G ra y s o n . Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U. S. a t6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S. Ct . 2 0 5 2 , 8 0 L. E d. 2d 674. T hi s cl ai m does notm eetan exc ept i on t o the pr ocedur al bar s and s houl d be di s m i s s ed. 4
. Fa ilu re to re q u e st D N A tes tin go n fin g e rn a il sc ra p in gs fr o m th e v ictim and bl ood s am

pl es f r om the cr i m e s cene ¶4 6. G r ays on cont ends t hatf i ngernai l s c r a pi ng s f

r om the v i c t i m w e r e col l ect ed and
s ubm i t t ed t o the M i s s i s s i ppi Cri m e L abor at ory. H e ar gues thatcouns el w as i nef f ect i ve f or f ai l i ng t o r eques tD N A t es t i ng. H e al s o “ s peci f i cal l y r eques t s thi s Courtr emand t hi s m att er t o the ci r cui tcourtf

orpr ocee di ngs r el at ed t o D N A t es t i ng p ursuantt o [ Sect i on 99- 39- 5 of th e M is s is s ip p i C o d e .]” ¶ 4 7 . T h is is s u e w a s c o n s id e re d a n d r e je c te d in G ra y s o n ’s fi rs t P C R p ro c e e d in g s . G r ays on II, 879 So. 2d at1017. W e hel d: ¶ 22. G r ays on nextasse r t s thatcouns el w as i nef f ect i ve bec aus e they di d not s u b mi tb l o o d s a mp l e s a n d th e f i n g e rn a i l s c r a p i n g s o f

th e v i c t i m f

o rDNA anal ys i s . I n hi s s t at ement s t o l aw enf or cement , G r ays on i m pl i cat ed J as on K i l patr i ck as the murde r er . G r ays on cont ends thathad D N A t es t i ng been per f orm ed, i t“mi ghtvery w el l have l i nked K i l patr i ck t o the cr i m e s cene . ” The S tat e a rgu es th at i t w as so u n d tr ial strateg y no t t o h av e D N A test ing d o n e. In h is s tate m e n ts to p o lice , G ra y so n a d m its to b e in g a t th e v ictim ' s h o m e w ith K i l p a tr i c k a tth e t i m e o f th e c r i m e . E v e n i f

D N A a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d K i l p a tr i c k 's i nvol vement , i tw oul d notpr ove G r ays on' s i nnocenc e. A ddi t i onal l y, poi nt i ng th e fin g e r a t K ilp a trick , w h o w a s n o t ca lled d u rin g tri a l, w a s o n e o f th e m a in def ens e s tr at egi es . B y conduct i ng D N A tes t i ng i tm ay have r emoved t he “empt y chai r ” def

ens e couns el w as tryi ng t o f i l l w i th K i l patr i ck.

### 28

¶ 23. G r ays on ha s nots how n thatc ouns el s ' f ai l ur e t o c onductD N A t es t i ng w as d e fi c ie n t p e rf

o rm a n c e . Str i c kl

and , 466 U . S. at688, 1 04 S. C t . at2064- 54. A ddi t i onal l y, G r ays on has notdemonstr at ed a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty thatthe r es ul t s of the gui l tors ent enci ng phase of the tr i al w oul d have bee n di f f er ent h a d D N A te s tin g b e e n d o n e . W a lk e r v . S ta te , 863 So. 2d a t12- 13 ( ci t i ng Mohr v. S ta te , 584 So. 2d 426, 430 ( M i s s . 1991) ) . FN 3. A ccor di ngl y, G r ays on c a n n o t s h o w p re

ju d ic e . Str i c kl

and , 466 U . S. at694, 104 S. C t . at2068. FN 4. FN 4. I n i t s r es pons e, the St at e poi nt s outt hatpos t - convi ct i on couns el has notr eques t ed D N A t es t i ng be done and does notcont end thati thas b e e n c o n d u c te d a n d ite x o n e ra te s G ra y s o n . In h is re p ly , G r ays on “ r e q u e s t[ s ] th a tt e s ts a mp l e s o

f t is s u e , f l u i d o ro th e rp o t e n t i a lDNA b e a rin ge v ide n c e in th e h a n d s o f th e S ta te b e m a d e a v a ila b le to G r ays on f

orexam i nat i on t es t i ng by an i ndepende ntlaborat or y. G r ays on f

ur the rr e ques t

s f unds be m ade avai labl e f ors uch ex am i nat i on and t e s t i ng . ” Gra

y s on ' s r e qu e s twi l ln ot

b e c on s i de r e d as i tis not prop erl y before this C ou rt . M . R . A . P. 22 pr ovi des the pr ocedur e f or r eques t i ng expens es s uch as thi s . I f G r ays on w ant s the f

unds f or s uch e x a m in a tio n a n d tes tin g , h e sh o u ld file a p ro p e r m o tio n p u rsu a n t to M . R . A . P. 22. I d. (foo tno te om itted) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶48. Fol l ow i ng the i ssuance of t he opi ni on i n G rayson II, G r ays on s t i l l has notf i l ed a p ro p e r m o tio n f

o r te s tin g . See M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -5 (1 ) (S u p p . 2 0 1 2 ). S in c e th is c laim la c k s m e ri t, R y a n ’s p e rf o rm a n c e d id n o t p re

ju d ic e G ra y s o n . Str i c kl and , 466 U . S. at687, 104 S. C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 674. T hi s cl ai m does notm eetan exc ept i on t o the pr ocedur al bar s and s houl d be di s m i s s ed. 5. D istan ci ngthem selves f rom G rayson a ndrepeatedl y i nform i ngthe jury thatthey were appoi nt ed couns el pr es ent onl y bec aus e they w ere “ o r de r e d t o c o me h e r e t o r e

p r e s e n th i m” ¶49. G r ays on cont ends that hi s t ri al cou nsel viol at ed hi s duty of l oyal ty t o G r ays on and “ef f ect i vel y s t acke d the odds a gai ns thi m s i nce hi s ow n c ouns el c onveyed thathe d i d not

### 29

w an t to be pres en t to assistG ray so n . ” G ray so n th en cit es se v era l instan ce s i n th e rec o rd
w her e couns el s t at ed thathe w as appoi nt ed t o r epr es entG r ays on. G r ays on as s ert s that
c o u n s e l to ld w itn e s s e s “ a lm o s t a p o lo g e tic a lly ” th a t h e h a d b e e n a p p o in te d . ¶50. T he r ecor d r evea l s that G r ays on has t aken eac h of thes e i ns t ance s compl et el y outof cont ext . T he mer e ment i on t hatcouns el i s appoi nt ed does noti ndi cat e thatcouns el w as not l oyal t o hi s c l i ent . A ddi t i onal l y, w hi l e w e have c ondemned t he pr act i ce of couns el i nf

orm i ng th e ju ry th a t h e w a s a p p o in te d , w e h a v e n o t h e ld th a t i t is re v e rs ib le e rr o r. S a n de rs v. S ta te , 4 2 9 S o . 2 d 2 4 5 , 2 5 2 ( M is s . 1 9 8 3 ); B ro w n in gv. S ta te , 4 5 0 S o . 2 d 7 8 9 , 7 9 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). G r ays on has f

ai l ed t o s how thattr i al couns el ’ s per f orm ance w as def

i ci ent , and he ha s f

ai l ed to s h o w th a t a n y s u c h d e fi c ie n c y p re ju d ic e d h is c a s e . Str i c kl and , 46 6 U. S. a t68 7, 10 4 S. C t. 20 5 2 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 ; W al ker , 863 So. 2d at17. ¶ 5 1 . S i n c e t h i s c l a i m l a c k s me r i t , Ry a n ’ s f a i l u r e t o r a i s e th i s c l a i m i n th e o r i g i n a l P CR p ro c e e d in g s d id n o t p re ju d ic e G ra y s o n . Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U. S. a t6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S. Ct . 2 0 5 2 , 8 0 L. E d. 2d 674. T hi s cl ai m does n ot m eetan exc ept i on t o the pr ocedur al bar s and s houl d be di s m i s s ed. 6. Fai l ur e to adequatel y r evi ew tr ans cr i

pt i ons of G r ays on’s audi otaped and vi deotaped s tatem ents adm i t ted i nto evi dence, adequatel y r evi ew the vi deotape of

G r ays on’s May 24 s tat em ent adm i t t ed i nt o evi dence , and obj ect to i nadm is s i ble por t i ons and i m pr operom is si ons or

, al ternat i vel

y, f ai l ur e to adequatel

y pr es er ve the r ecord f

orappeal

on thes e is s ues ¶52. G r ays on as s ert s t hat “[ a] l t ho ug h cou nsel li t i gated c oncerni ng the admi s s i bi l i ty of G ray so n ’s st atem en ts, co u n sel fail ed to ad eq u ately re v iew the e v id e n c e o n c e the tr ial co u rt deni ed the s uppr es s i on m ot i ons to en sur e thati nadmi s s i bl e port i ons of the s t at ement s and

### 30

im p ro p e r o m is s io n s w e re a d d re s s e d a n d a d e q u a te ly p re s e rv e d o n th e r e c o rd fo r a p p e a l.” G ra y so n a d m its th a t co u n se l o b jec ted se v e ra l ti m e s re g a rd in g G ra y so n ’s th re e sta tem e n ts to p o li ce . G ray so n co n tend s tha t th ese o b jecti o n s w ere inad eq u a te, an d b ec au se o f co u n sel’s def i ci entper f

orm ance , the j ury w as i m pr oper l y al l ow ed t o hearthatG r ays on had pur chas ed
coca i ne once he r eturned t o Fl or i da af t erthe cr i m e. G r ays on al s o cont ends thatthe j ury w as i m pr oper l y al l ow ed t o hearthatG r ays on w as w ant ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi and thati tr el at ed t o the R esti tuti o n C en ter i n P asc ag o u la. G ray so n asse rt s tha t he w a s p re ju d iced b y the ju ry’s know l edge of

i rr el evantand damagi ng i nf orm at i on. ¶53. G rayson argued on dir ectapp eal thatthe tr i al c our te rr ed i n f ai l i ng t o supp res s G r ays on ’s st at ement s beca us e they w er e obt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of hi s r i ghtt o couns el and b e c a u s e th e y w e re in v o lu n ta ry . G r ay s on I, 8 0 6 So . 2 d a t2 4 7 - 4 9 . Gr a y s o n “ ma d e th e s a me a rg u m e n ts ” in h is fi rs t P C R p ro c e e d in g s . G rayson II, 8 7 9 S o . 2 d at 1 0 1 2 . T h e a d m iss ib ili ty of i nf orm at i on r egar di ng G r ays on’ s pur chas e of drugs af t erthe cr i m e and the f

actthathe had
es cape d f

r om the R es t i tut i on C ent erw er e notdi s cus s ed. ¶54 . R ule 404(b) of the M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of E vidence p rovi des: (b ) O th er C rim es, W ro n g s, o r A cts . E v id e n c e o f o th e r c rim e s, w ro n g s, o r a c ts i s n ota dmi s s i bl e t o pr ov e the c ha r a c t e ro f a p e r s on i n or de rt o s how t hathe act ed i n conf

orm i ty ther ew i t h. Itm ay, how ever , be admi s s i bl e f orother pu rposes s uch as pr oof of m ot i ve , o

p p o rtu n ity , i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, k n o w led g e , ide n tity , o r a b se n c e o f m ista k e o r a c c id e n t. M .R .E . 4 0 4 (b ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). G ra y so n a d m itt e d in h is c o n fe ss io n th a t h e b ro k e in to Sm i th’ s hous e t o s t eal a shot gun beca us e he ne eded money t o buy drugs . T he f actthathe actual l y pur chas ed drug s af t erhe r eturned t o i n Fl or i da w as admi s s i bl e as pr oof of m ot i ve.

### 31

M . R . E . 404( b) . E ven i f

tr i al / appel l at e couns el ’ s pe r f orm ance w as de f

i ci enti n f ai l i ng t o obj ect t o t hi s evi dence , t he obj ect i on w oul d have been pr oper l y overrul ed, and G r ays on has f ai l ed to s h o w th a t a n y a lle g e d d e fi c ie n t p e rf o rm a n c e p re

ju d ic e d h im . Str i c kl

and , 466 U . S. at687, 1 0 4 S . C t. 20 5 2 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 ; W al ker , 863 So. 2d at17. ¶55. R ul e 404( b) m ay al s o perm i t the admi s s i on of the evi dence that G r ays on had es cape d f r om the R es t i tut i on C ent er . T hi s e vi dence may be admi s s i bl e t o s how thatG r ays on ha d the
o p p o rtu n ity to co m m itthe c ri m e. M . R . E . 4 0 4 (b). E v en if tr ial /app ellate co u n sel’s per f orm ance w as defi ci enti n f ai l i ng t o obj ectt o the evi dence of the es cape f

r om the R e s titu tio n C e n te r, G ra y s o n h a s fa ile d to o ff e r s u ff ic ie n t p ro o f o f p re

ju d ic e . Str i c kl

and , 466 U .S . at 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 20 5 2 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 ; W al ker , 863 So. 2d at17. G r ays on w as advi s ed of

hi s r i ght s s ever al t i m es , and he ga ve a de t ai l ed conf es s i on, i n w hi ch he a dm i t t ed th a t h e m u rd e re d S m ith . E v e n if th e b rie f r e fe re n c e to th e R e stitu tio n C e n terin P a sc a g o u la had bee n r edac t ed f

r om G r ays on’ s c onf

es s i on, the j ury s t i l l w oul d ha ve hear d the r es tof the
c o n fe ss io n , inc lu d in g G ra y so n ’s d e taile d d e sc rip tio n o f th e m u rd e r. G ra y s o n h a s fa iled to s how that“ther e i s a ‘ r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty that , butf orcouns el ’ s unpr of

es s i onal err or s , the
r es ul tof the pr ocee di ngs w oul d have be en di f f er ent . ’ ” Ch a m b e rlin , 5 5 So. 3 d a t1050 ( quot i ng Mohr , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d at 43 0 ). ¶56. W e cons i s t ent l y have he l d that“[ d] ef ens e couns el i s pr es um ed compet ent . ” D avis v. S ta te , 897 So. 2d 960, 965 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng W a sh in g to n v. Sta te , 62 0 S o. 2d 96 6 (M i ss. 1993) ) . “Per f

ectr epr es ent at i on i n hi nds i ghti s notthe s t andar d, and the ac cus ed i s notent i t l ed t o err or l es s couns el . ” D a v is , 897 S o. 2d at966 ( ci t i ng S trin g e r v . S ta te , 454 So. 2d 468, 476

### 32

( M i s s . 1984) . “The Si xth A m endmentguar ant ees r easonabl e compet ence , notper f ect
a dv o c a c y ju d g e d w ith th e b e n e

fit o f h in d sig h t. ” D a v is , 897 So. 2d at966- 67 ( emphasi s added) ( quot i ng Y

arbor ough v. G entry , 540 U . S. 1, 124 S. C t . 1, 4, 157 L . E d. 2d 1 ( 2003) , ci t i ng Bel l v. Cone , 5 3 5 U .S . 6 8 5 , 7 0 2 , 1 2 2 S . C t. 18 4 3 , 1 5 2 L . E d . 2 d 9 1 4 (2 0 0 2 ); K im m el m an v. Mor r is on , 4 7 7 U .S . 3 6 5 , 3 8 2 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 2 5 7 4 , 9 1 L . E d . 2 d 3 0 5 (1 9 8 6 ); Str i c kl and , 46 6 U. S. at689, 104 S. C t . 2052. ¶57. U pon a thor ough r evi ew of the di r ect - appea l r ecor d, the pr i orPC R pr ocee di ngs , and the evi dence of

f er ed by G r ays on i n s uppor tof hi s curr entpos t - convi ct i on m ot i on, w e f i nd that h e h a s f a ile d to s h o w th a t h is tr ia l/a p p e lla te c o u n s e l r e n d e re d in e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n se l. Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 20 5 2 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 . S in c e th is c laim lac k s m e rit, R yan’ s f ai l ur e t o ra i s e thi s cl ai m i n t he or i gi nal PC R pr ocee di ngs di d notpr ej udi ce G r ays on. I d. T hi s cl ai m does notm eetan exc ept i on t o the pr ocedur al bar s and s houl d be di s m i s s ed. 7. Fai l ur e to obj ect t o the Stat e’s cl os i ng ar gum ent dur i ng the tr i al

, w hi ch vouche d f

orJas on K i l

patr i ck and i ncluded the prose cutor ’s pers onal s tat em ent

s and i nf or m at i on notpr oper l

y adm i t t ed i nt o evi dence ¶ 5 8 . G ra y so n a rg u e s th a t th e p ro se c u tio n m a d e se v e ra l i m p ro p e r sta tem e n ts a n d a rg u m e n ts dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent . G r ays on cont ends thatthe pros ecut ori m pr oper l y vouched f or K ilp a trick ’s in n o c e n c e a n d a ss e rte d fa c ts n o t in th e re c o rd . G ra y so n a rg u e s th a t trial/a p p e llate
couns el ’ s f

ai l ur e t o obj ectt o thes e s t at ement s and ar gum ent s w as cons t i tut i onal l y i nef f ect i ve a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. ¶59. T he re cor d r evea l s thatcouns el f orG r ays on ar gued i n cl os i ng ar gum ent s that K i l patr i ck w as the r eal m ur der er ; t hatG r ays on’ s conf es s i on w as coer ced a nd i nvol unt ary; and

### 33

th a t G ra y so n ’s fin g e rp rin ts w e re n o t fo u n d a t th e c rim e sc e n e . T h e p ro se c u to r re sp o n d e d to G r ays on’ s ar gum ent s aboutK i l patr i ck by poi nt i ng outthatG r ays on’ s theory did notm ake
s e n s e . I f Ki l p a tr i c k h a d b e e n th e o n e t o b r e a k i n t o th e h o u s e , th e n S mi th d i d n o tk n o w h i m, a n d h e c o u ld h a v e e sc a p e d w ith o u t k ill in g h e r, b e c a u se sh e w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n a b le to i dent i f y hi m . T he pr os ecut orthen s t at ed: A nd thi s i s w hatthe pol i ce l ooked f orthatm orni ng. W hy? W hy thi s ? W hy that ? Expl ai n i t . T hey ar e doi ng the sa m e thi ng atthi s t i m e f orJ as on K i l patr i ck i n Fl or i da. W e ca n’ teven puthi m i n M i s s i s s i ppi . I f w e coul d, he w oul d be s i t t i ng overther e. L aw enf or cementf

r om tw o s t at es a r e i nvol ved i n thi s . A nd that ’ s w hy he’ s nother e. B uthe’ s goi ng t o ki l l s om ebody h e ai n’ tgotno r eas on t o? T he pr os ecut orr es ponded t o the ar gum entre gar di ng t he l ack of f i ngerpr i nt s by poi nt i ng out th a t , a tth e t i me Gr a y s o n ma d e h i s s t a t e me n t s t o p o l i c e , th e f i n g e rp r i n t s c o l l e c t e d a tth e c r i me s cene had notyetbeen a nal yzed. T he pr os ecut ortheor i zed thatG r ays on m ay have s t at ed that Ki l p a tr i c k wo r e g l o v e s i n a n e f f o r tt o e x p l a i n th e l a c k o f Ki l p a tr i c k ’ s f

i n g e rp r i n t s a tth e c r i me s cene . ¶60 . G rayson ag ues that bot h o f these ar gu m ents w ere obj ect i on able and thatdefense
c o u n se l w a s d e fic ien t in fa ili n g to o b jec t. In an a ly z in g the p ro se c u to r’s clo sin g arg u m e n t, “it i s nece s s ary t o exami ne the s urr oundi ng c i r cumst ance s a nd be c ar ef ul nott o t ake a s t at ement out - of
- cont ext . ” S

p ice r v. Sta te , 921 So. 2d 292, 318 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 522 So. 2d 201, 209 ( M i s s . 1988) ) . I n di s cus s i ng al l eged i m pr opercl os i ng ar gum entby a pr os ecut or , w e have hel d: T rial cou n sel i s g ran ted w ide lati tud e d u ri n g clos ing arg u m en t. “[T ] h e c o u rt c a n n o t co n tro l th e su b sta n c e a n d p h ra se o lo g y o f c o u n se l' s a rg u m e n t; th e re is

### 34

nothi ng t o author i ze the courtt o i nt er f er e unt i l ther e i s e i therabus e, unj us t i f i ed denunci at i on, ora s t at ementof f actnots how n i n evi dence . ” “To const i tut e a due pr oces s vi ol at i on, the pr osec ut or i al m i s conductm us tbe ‘ “of s uf f i ci ent sign if ican ce to resu ltin the d en ial o f th e d efe n d an t' s ri g h t t o a fa irtr ial . ”’” Ma n n in gv. Sta te , 735 So. 2d 323, 345 ( M i s s . 1999) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . G r ays on has tak e n th e p ro se c u to r’s d isc u ss io n o f th e fin g e rp rin t ev id e n c e o u t o f c o n tex t. If trial/a p p e llate
couns el had obj ect ed t o thata r gum ent , the obj ect i on w oul d have be en overrul ed. G r ays on has fa ile d to s h o w th a t a n y a lle g e d d e fi c ie n t p e rf o rm a n c e p re

ju d ic e d h im . Str i c kl

and , 46 6 U. S.
a t 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 20 5 2 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 ; W al ker , 863 So. 2d at17. ¶6 1 . E v en if

tr ial /app ell ate c o u n sel sh o u ld h av e o b jected to the p rose cu tor’s st atem e n ts
r egar di ng w hy K i l patr i ck w as noton tr i al w i th G r ays on, G r ays on ha s f ai l ed t o of

f ers uf f i ci ent pr oof of pr ej udi ce. G r ays on w as advi s ed of hi s r i ght s s ever al t i m es , and he ga ve a de t ai l ed conf es s i on, i n w hi ch he a dm i t t ed thathe murde r ed Sm i th. E ven i f the j ury had bee n i ns truct ed t o di s r egar d the pr os ecut or ’ s s t at em ents ab ou tK i l patr i ck, i ts t i l l w oul d have c ons i der ed G ra y so n ’s c o n fe ss io n . G ra y so n h a s fa iled to sh o w th a t “th e re is a ‘re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty th a t, butf orcouns el ’ s unpr of

es s i on al err ors , the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ngs w oul d have be en di f f er ent . ’ ” Ch a m b e rlin , 55 So. 3d at1050 ( quot i ng Mohr , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d at 43 0 ). ¶62. U pon a thor ough r evi ew of t he di r ect - appea l re cor d, the pr i orPC R pr ocee di ngs , and the evi dence off

er ed by G r ays on i n s uppor tof hi s curr entpos t - convi ct i on m ot i on, w e f i nd that h e h a s fa iled to sh o w th a t h is tria l/ap p e llate c o u n se l re n d ere d ineffec tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 20 5 2 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 . S in c e th is c laim lac k s m e rit,

### 35

R yan’ s f ai l ur e t o ra i s e thi s cl ai m i n t he or i gi nal PC R pr ocee di ngs di d notpr ej udi ce G r ays on. I d. T hi s cl ai m does notm eetan exc ept i on t o the pr ocedur al bar s and s houl d be di s m i s s ed. 8. Fai l ur e to obj ect t o the s ubm is s i on to the j ur y of an i ns tr uct i on that a llo w e d a v e rd ict o

f g u ilt y o n th e c a

p ita l- m u rd e r c h a rg e w ith o u t a f i n d i n gth a tGr a

y s o n c o mmi t t e d

e v e r y e l e me n to

f th a tc r i me ¶ 6 3 . G ra y so n a rg u e s th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt su b m itt e d In stru c tio n S -3 A to th e ju ry , an d it al l ow ed the j ury t o fi nd G r ays on gui l ty of capi t al m ur derupon proof thathe had c om m i t t ed onl y one el ementof

the cr i m e. G r ays on cont ends t hatt r i al / appel l at e couns el w as i nef f ect i ve i n f ai l i ng t o obj ectt o thi s i ns truct i on. G r ays on cont ends thathe w as pr ej udi ced be caus e the j ury w as notprope r l y i ns truct ed and i tm ay have bel i eved thatK i l patr i ck w as the ki l l erand
s t i l l convi ct ed G r ays on of capi t al m ur derunderthe err oneous i ns truct i on. ¶64 . Instruct i on S -3A st at es: T he C our ti ns truct s the J ury thate ach pe r s on pr es enta tthe t i m e and c ons ent i ng t o orencour agi ng the comm i s s i on of a cr i m e, and know i ngl y, w i l f ul l y and fe lo n io u sly d o in g a n y a c t w h ic h is a n e lem e n t o f th e c rim e o r im m e d iate ly connec t ed w i th i t , orl eadi ng t o i t s comm i s s i on, i s as m uch a pr i nci pal a s i f he had w i th hi s ow n hands comm i t t ed the w hol e of f ens e; a nd i f

you bel i eve f

r om th e e v i d e n c e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , th a tth e De f e n d a n t , BL AYDE N. G R A Y SO N , di d w i l f

ul l y, unl aw f

ul l y, know i ngl y and f

el oni ous l y do any ac t w hi ch i s an el ementof the cr i m e w i th w hich he i s char ged, namel y C api t al M ur der , ori m m edi at el y connec t ed w i th i t , orl eadi ng t o i t s comm i s s i on, then a n d i n th a te v e n t , y o u s h o u l d f i n d th e De f

e n d a n t , BL AYDE N. GR AYS ON, G u il ty o f C ap it al M u rde r. W e h a v e fo u n d s im ila r i n s tru c tio n s to b e e rr o n e o u s , th o u g h h a rm le s s . See B ish o p v. S ta te , 8 1 2 S o . 2 d 9 3 4 , 9 4 2 -4 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ); Mila n o v. S ta te , 7 9 0 S o . 2 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 4 -85 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ); L ig g in s v . S ta te , 7 2 6 S o . 2 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ); Ho rn b u rg e r v . Sta te , 650 So. 2d 510, 515 ( M i s s . 1995) . I n Bis hop , a d eath-pena l ty case, w e con si dered all of the jury instruct i on s,

### 36

in c lu d in g “ th e o th e r in stru c tio n s w h ich re q u ir e d th e ju ry to fin d th e S tate h a d to p ro v e a ll el ement s of

the of f ens e bef or e B i s hop coul d be f

ound gui l ty, ” and concl uded thatthe err or w a s h a rm le s s . B is hop , 812 So. 2d at944. ¶65. I n I ns truct i on C
- 1( A ) , G r ays on’ s j ury w as i ns truct ed that“[ t ] he St at e mustpr ove ea ch
a nd ev e ry e s s e nt i a l e l e mentof the c r i me c ha r ge d b e yo nd a r e a s on a bl e do ub t . ” I ns truc t i on S4A s t at ed the el ement s of c api t al murde r . I ns truct i ons S- 5A a nd D 2A s t at ed the el ement s of bur gl ary. I ns truct i on D - 8 agai n st at ed thatt he St at e had the bur den of pr ovi ng the def

endant gui l ty of every el em entof

the cr i m e cha r ged. G r ays on al s o r eques t ed and r ece i ved an in stru c tio n o n th e les se r o ffe n se o f a c c e ss o ry a fte r th e fa c t. ¶66. T he opi ni on i n Hor nburgerw as ent er ed by thi s C our ti n 1995. T her ef ore, tr i al / appel l at e couns el s houl d have know n thata s i m i l ari ns truct i on had bee n f ou nd to be
err oneous . E ven i f

t r i al / appel l at e couns el ’ s fa i l ur e t o obj ectt o t hi s i ns truct i on w as def i ci ent per f orm ance , G r ays on has f ai l ed t o s how pr ej udi ce. A s i n B is hop , w hen w e cons i deral l the i ns truct i ons t aken a s a w hol e, w e f i nd the err orw as ha rm l es s . T her ef or e, G r ays on has f

ai l ed t o s how thatther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty thatthe r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have b e e n d if fe re n t. Ch a m b e rlin , 55 So. 3d at1050 ( quot i ng Mohr , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d at 43 0 ). ¶67. U pon a thor ough r evi ew of the di r ect - appea l r ecor d, the pr i orPC R pr ocee di ngs , and the evi dence of

f er ed by G r ays on i n s uppor to f hi s curr entpos t - convi ct i on m ot i on, G r ays on h a s fa iled to s h o w th a t h is tria l/ap p e llate c o u n se l re n d e re d in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 20 5 2 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 . S in c e th is c laim lac k s m e rit,

### 37

R yan’ s f ai l ur e t o ra i s e thi s cl ai m i n t he or i gi nal PC R pr ocee di ngs di d notpr ej udi ce G r ays on. I d. T hi s cl ai m does notm eetan exc ept i on t o the pr ocedur al bar s and s houl d be di s m i s s ed. 9
. Fa ilu re to a de q u a tely in v e stig a te a n d c o n su lt w ith G r a

y s o n p rio r to tri al, w hich r esul t ed i n G rayson inf orm i ngcou nseltha the d i d n ot desi re t o oppos e a death s entence ( i f convi cted) unt i lthe m i ddl e of the tr i al w h e n G ra

y so n ’s fa m ily a n d

in d e p e n d e n t co u n s e l w e re b ro u g h t in to advis e G r ays on of

his opt i ons 10. Fai l ure t o adequatel y pr es ent

m i t igat i on evi dence atthe s entenci ng phas e i n s uppor tof

a dd i t i onals tat ut or

y and nons tat ut or

y m i t igat i ng ci r cum s tances w hi ch pr ej udi ced G r ays on ¶ 6 8 . G ra y so n ’s n in th a n d ten th c laim s o f in e ffe c tiv e a ss ist a n c e o f t ri a l/a p p e lla te c o u n s e l w ill b e c o n side red tog ethe r. In h is ninth c lai m , h e se ts ou t his arg u m en t th at co u n sel’s per f orm ance w as def

i ci ent . In his t enth cl ai m , he s et s outhi s ar gum entthatthe def i ci ent p e r f o rma n c e p r e

j u d i c e d h i m. ¶ 6 9 . In h is firs t P C R p ro c e e d in g s, G ra y so n a rg u e d th a t his tri a l co u n se l w a s c o n stitu tio n a lly in e ff e c tiv e in fa ilin g to in v e s tig a te a n d p re s e n t m itig a tio n e v id e n c e . G rayson II, 879 So. 2d at1014- 17. W e di s cus s ed atl ength the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng G r ays on’ s i ni t i al deci s i on n o t t o o p p o se th e d ea th p en alty an d h is l ater d ec isi o n to allow the p rese n tat ion o f a v ery lim ite d m itig a tio n c a s e . I d. W e conc l uded: T he record i n this m at t er i s cl ear. G rayson w as th o r o u g h l y a dv is e d

b y h is two def ens e coun s el

, the tr i alcour t

, and by i ndepende ntcouns el , M r . Shepard, of the c on s e qu e nc e s of

his de c is i on . G rays on bl ocked hi s couns el s ’ ef f or t s and c a n n o t n o w c la im d e fi c ie n t p e rf o rm a n c e . D o w th itt , 2 3 0 F . 3 d a t 7 4 8 ; Clark , 227 F . 3 d a t 2 8 4 . See al

s o W ill ia m s v . Sta te , 7 2 2 S o . 2 d 4 4 7 , 4 5 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). I d. at1016 ( emphasi s added) . W e f ur therr ej ect ed G r ays on’s a r gum ent“thatcouns el w as i nef f ect i ve i n f

ai l i ng t o per f

orm an ade quat e i nves t i gat i on, pur s uantt o W ig g in s v . Sm ith , 539

### Grayson argue s that this Cour t’ s fa ct ualf indings were er

rone ous bec aus e Grays on’s 10 

### firs t PCR c ounse l f

ai le d adequate ly to pre sent thefac ts to thisCourt. As wi llbe di scuss ed, our factual fin din gs w ere basedup onthe trial tran script. 38 U . S. 510, 1 23 S . C t . 2527[ , 156 L . E d. 2d 471 ( 2003) ] . ” I d. T hi s ar gum enthas been
co n side red an d rejected an d , there fore , h is cl aim s a re b are d b y the d o ctri n e o f re s ju d ica ta . 10 ¶ 7 0 . P ro c e d u ral b a r n o tw ith sta n d in g , G ra y so n n o w a rg u e s th a t co u n se l w a s c o n stitu tio n a lly i nef f ect i ve i n thei r“f

ai l ur e t o adequa t el y i nves t i gat e and cons ul tw i th G r ays on pr i ort o tr i al
w hi ch r es ul t ed i n G r ays on i nf orm i ng couns el thathe di d notdes i r e t o oppos e a de ath s ent ence ( i f conv i ct ed) unt i l the mi ddl e of the tr i al w hen G r ays on’ s f ami l y and i ndepende ntcouns el
w er e br oughti n t o advi s e G r ays on of hi s opt i ons . ” G r ays on f i r s tas s ert s thatcouns el di d not
cons ul tw i th hi m r egar di ng the tr i al pr ocee di ngs , r egar di ng the natur e o f the s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng, orthe appe al pr oces s . G r ays on cl ai m s t hatcounse l di d nothave a ny m eani ngf ul di s cus s i ons w i th hi m . G ra ys on al l eges that , had couns el adequa t el y advi s ed hi m r egar di ng hi s deci s i on nott o oppos e the death penal ty, “G r ays on w oul d have c hanged hi s m i nd m uch
e a rl ie r.” ¶71. G r ays on’ s al l egat i ons ar e co ntr ary t o the r ecor d. B oth couns el ’ s af f i davi tand G ra y so n ’s a ff

id a v it n o te th a t G ra y so n sta ted fro m th e b e g in n in g th a t h e d id n o t w a n t to o p p o se th e d e a th p e n a lty . T h e re c o rd re v e a ls G ra y so n ’s c o u n se l d isc u ss e d th e m a tter a t len g th
w i th G r ays on and expl ai ned the pr ocee di ngs and hi s opt i ons t o hi m . C ouns el then r eques t ed thatthe courtappoi nt anotheratt orney t o di s cus s the i s s ue w i th G r ays on, “s o thati ti s cl ear t hatM r . B a i l e y a nd I ha ve no tbe e n d e r e l i c ti n o urdu t i e s t o o urc l i e nta nd ha ve made a l l of

### 39

hi s opt i ons cl eart o hi m and make s ur e thathe under s t ands the i m pl i cat i ons and r ami f i cat i ons o f w h a t h e p lan s to d o to m o rro w .” T h e tr ia l c o u rt th e n q u e stio n e d G ra y so n re g a rd in g h is deci s i on, and G r ays on r at i f i ed eve rythi ng couns el had s t at ed. T he t ri al courtal s o as ked G r ays on’ s f

ami l y i f they bel i eved he under s t ood the r ami f i cat i ons of

hi s deci s i on, and they
s ai d he di d. A f

t ercons ul t i ng w i th the thi r d att orney, G r ays on deci ded t o al l ow hi s couns el t o cal l onl y hi s m otherand gra ndm otheri n m i t i gat i on and t o m ake a cl os i ng ar gum ent . T he tr i al courtques t i oned G r ays on t w i ce mor e t o m ake s ur e he a gr eed w i th w hathi s att orney w as s t a t i n g a n d t o ma k e s u r e th a th e d i d n o th a v e a n y o b j e c t i o n t o wh a th a d b e e n s t a t e d . As we hel d i n G rayson II, “G r ays on w as thor oughl y advi sed b y his tw o def ens e couns el , the tr i al
court , and by i ndepende ntcouns el , M r . Shepar d, of the cons equenc es of

hi s deci s i on. ” I

d. at 1016. G r a ys on ’ s b l a nk e ts t a t e menti n hi s l a t e s tPCR p r oc e e di ng s tha th e “ w ou l d ha ve change d hi s m i nd m uch ea r l i er ” i s unconvi nci ng. ¶72. G r ays on nextar gues t hatcounse l conduct ed vi r tual l y no i nves t i gat i on i n pr epar at i on fo r se n ten c in g , a n d this failu re co n stitu ted ine ffe c tiv e as sis tan c e o f co u n se l. G ra y so n a ss e rts that coun sel cal l ed o nly hi s m otherand g randm otherto t est i fy i n m i t i gati on “si m ply becau se they had noti nves t i gat ed and ha d no otherevi dence t o pr es ent . ” G r ays on now all eges that he di d noti m pede c ouns el ’ s abi l i ty t o t al k w i th f ami l y mem ber s orotherw i tnes s es a nd that G r ays on w as cooper at i ve w i th c ouns el . G r ays on now c ont ends thathe “ di d noti n a ny w ay l i m i tcouns el ’ s abi l i ty t o pr es entm i t i gat i on i n s ent enci ng. ” H e f ur thera s s ert s thathe di d not
m ake a know i ng and i nt el l i gentw ai verof hi s r i ghtt o pr es entaddi t i onal m i t i gat i on.

### 40

¶7 3 . A g ain, G ray so n ’s all eg ati o n s are co n tr ary to th e rec o rd. A ft er co n su lt ing w ith th e third att orney, the courtw as i nf orm ed r egar di ng G r ays on’ s deci s i on t o al l ow a l i m i t ed m i t i gat i on cas e, and the f

ol l ow i ng col l oquy occurr ed: B Y T H E C O U R T : M r . I s hee, anythi ng you w antt o add? B Y M R . I SH E E : Y ourH onor , the r eas on I ' m goi ng t o optt oday nott o puton M r . G r ays on, he s t i l l has r es ervat i ons a boutnotf i ght i ng the death pe nal ty. T he m ai n r eas on, i t ' s m y u nd ers t andi ng he w is hes t o do, is t o gi ve his m otherand g ra n dm o th e r a n o

p p o rtu n ity to sp e a k

o n h is b e h a lf

, si nce they w antt o. H e has n o o b jec tio n to th is. H e ' s a lso in fo rm e d m e th a t I m ay m ake a c l os i ng ar gum ent . B u t I d o n ' t believe h e p erso n all y ca n stan d u p an d ask for li fe w ith o u t p a ro le. A n d I th in k if I a tte m p te d to h a v e h im d o so , the n h e w o u ld p ro b a b ly m a k e v e ry in c rim in a tin g sta tem e n ts in fro n t of the ju ry w h ich w o u ld pr obabl y t end t o caus e them t o i m pos e the death pe nal ty. I n f act , i t ' s m y bel i ef he may even as k the j ury f orthe dea th penal ty i f

I puthi m on the w i tnes s s t and. I' v e in fo rm e d h im o f a ll o f th is a n d h e ' s in fo rm e d m e th a t h e d o e s n o t w ish to te s tif y . B u t h e w ill a llo w m e to g o fo rw a rd w ith a d e fe n s e . B Y T H E C O U R T : M r. G ra y so n , d o y o u ag re e w ith w h a t yo u r a tto rn e y h a s s a id her e? B Y T H E D E F E N D A N T : Yes , m a' am . ( E m phas i s added. ) A gai n, as w e f ound i n G rayson II, “G r ays on w as thor oughl y advi s ed by hi s tw o def

ens e couns el , the tr i al court , an d by i ndepende ntcouns el , M r . Shepar d, of the
cons equenc es of

hi s deci s i on. ” I

d. at1016. G r ays on’ s cont ent i on thathi s w ai verw as not know i ng and i nt el l i genti s bel i ed by the r ecor d. ¶74 . E v en if

ad d it ion al m it igation ev iden ce w as di scove red , p u rsua n t t o G ray so n ’s in stru c tio n s, it co u ld n o t h a v e b e e n p re se n te d d u rin g th e se n ten c in g p h a se o f th e trial. “[ C ] ouns el i s n oti nef

f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o pr es entany evi dence atthe puni s hm entphas e, pur s uantt o hi s cl i ent ’s instruct i ons . ” I d. at1016 ( ci t i ng Clark v. Johnson , 227 F. 3d 273,

### 41

2 8 3 -84 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 0 )). “C o u n sel w il l no t be d ee m ed ineffec ti v e fo r foll o w ing their cli en t’ s w i s hes , s o l ong as t he cl i entm ade a n i nf orm ed dec i s i on. ” D ow thitt v. Johnson , 230 F. 3d 7 3 3 , 7 4 8 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); s ee al s o B ish o p v. Sta te , 882 So. 2d 135, 145 ( M i s s . 2004) . “B y no m eas ur e can . . . [ the def endant ] bl ock hi s l aw yer ' s ef f or t s and l at ercl ai m the r es ul t i ng per f orm ance w as cons t i tut i onal l y def i ci ent . ” G r ayson II, 8 79 So. 2d at1016 ( quot i ng D o w th itt , 2 3 0 F . 3 d at 74 8 ). ¶75. G r ays on al s o ar gues thati f couns el had i nvest i gat ed, they w oul d have di s cover ed
s ubs t ant i al m i t i gat i on evi dence fr om G r ays on’ s fa m i l y and ot her s . G r ays on of f er s num er ous affidav it s in su p p o rt o f h is pre sen t PC R m o ti o n . T h ese w itn esse s d esc ri b e G ray so n ’s chi l dhood, f

ami l y l i f e, t he abus e he suf

f er ed att he hands of hi s s t epf ather , and hi s drug abus e. M uch of thi s ev i den ce i s cumul at i ve of the t es t i m ony pr es ent ed dur i ng the s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng. ¶76. U pon a thor ough r evi ew of the di r ect - appea l r ecor d, the pr i orP C R proc eedi ngs , and the evi den ce o ff

er ed by G r ays on i n s uppor tof hi s curr entpos t - convi ct i on m ot i on, G r ays on h a s fa iled to sh o w c o u n se l’s p e rfo rm a n c e w a s d e fic ien t. A d d iti o n a lly , G ra y so n h a s fa iled to s how that“ ther e i s a ‘ r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty that , butf orc ouns el ' s unpr of

es s i onal err or s , the
r esul tof the pr ocee di ngs w oul d have be en di f f er ent . ’ ” Ch a m b e rlin , 55 So. 3d at1050 ( quot i ng Mohr , 584 So. 2d at430) . Si nce thi s cl ai m l acks m er i t , R yan’ s per f orm ance di d not p r e ju d ic e G ra y s o n . Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U . S . at 6 8 7 , 10 4 S . C t. 20 5 2 , 80 L . E d . 2d 67 4 . T h is cl ai m does notm eetan exc ept i on t o the pr ocedur al bar s and s houl d be di s m i s s ed.

### 42

1 1
. Fa ilu re to a rg u e m itig a tio n e v ide n c e to th e ju ry a n d m a k in go n ly g e n e ric so c ieta l a n d

re lig io u s a rg u m e n ts a g a in st th e d e a th p e n a lty in s entenci ng ¶77 . G r ays on ar gues that tri al cou nsel ’s fai l ure t o m enti on m i t i gati on evi dence i n hi s cl os i ng ar gum entw as def

i ci entper f

orm ance w hi ch pr ej udi ced hi m . T he r ecor d r evea l s thatcouns el di s cus s ed numer ous re as ons fort he j ury t o i m pos e a l i f e se nt ence i ns t ead of

t he death penal ty. T he r ecor d r evea l s that , thr oughoutthe gui l t - i nnocenc e phas e of the tr i al , “G r ays on i ns truct ed hi s couns el nott o oppos e the dea th pe nal ty i n the eve ntof a gui l ty ver di ct . ” G rayson II, 879 So. 2d at1014. I n G r ays on’ s af f i davi ti n s uppor tof hi s pre s entP C R m ot i on, he admi t s that h e to ld h is a tto rn e y “ fro m th e b e g in n in g th a t I d id n o t w a n t to o p p o se th e d e a th p e n a lty if convi ct ed. . . . ” The r e c or d r e ve a l s tha t , i n hi s c l os i ng a r gu ment , c ou ns e l mad e an im p a ss io n e d p lea fo r a s e n te n c e o f life w ith o u t p a ro le. T h e ju ry w a s p ro p e rly in stru c ted to cons i derm i t i gat i on evi dence . ¶78. T he St at e ar gues that , gi ven G r ays on’ s l i m i t at i ons on the pr es ent at i on of m i t i gat i on evidence, couns el had butone choi ce f orhi s cl os i ng ar gum ent– t o ar gue f orl i f e w i thout par ole. T he St at e cont ends thatcouns el ’ s cl os i ng ar gum entr epr es ent s s ound tr i al s tr at egy. T he St at e corr ect l y not es that“thi s C our thas be en cons i s t enti n f i ndi ng thatc l os i ng ar gum ent f al l s underthe ambi tof

def ens e couns el ’ s tr i al s tr at egy. ” H a v a rdv. S ta te , 928 So. 2d 771, 796 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng P ru itt v. S ta te , 8 0 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 4 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 )). ¶79. W e have cons i s t ent l y he l d that“ D ef ens e couns el i s pr es um ed compet ent . ” D a v is , 897 So. 2d at965 ( ci t i ng W

as hington , 620 So. 2d 966) . “Per f ectr epr es ent at i on i n hi nds i ghti s not the s t andar d, a nd the acc us ed i s notent i t l ed t o err or l es s couns el . ” Id . at966 (c i t i ng Str inger ,

### 43

4 5 4 S o . 2 d a t 4 7 6 ). “ T h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t g u a r a n te e s re a s o n a b le c o m p e te n c e , notper f ect advocac y j udged w i th the bene f i tof hi nds ight . ” Id . at9 66-67 ( emphasi s added) ( i nt ernal cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶80. U pon a thor ough re vi ew of the di r ect - appea l r ecor d, the pr i orPC R pr ocee di ngs , and the evi dence off

ered b y G r ays on i n s uppor tof hi s curr entpos t - convi ct i on m ot i on, G r ays on has fa i l ed t o s ho w tha tthe r e i s a r e a s on a bl e pr ob a bi l i ty tha tthe r e s ul tof the pr oc e e di ngs w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

fe re n t. Ch a m b e rlin , 55 So. 3d at1 05 0 (quot i ng Mohr , 584 So. 2d at 430) . T her ef

or e, G r ays on has f

ai l ed t o show thathi s tr i al / appel l at e couns el r ender ed in e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. Str i c kl and , 466 U . S. at687, 104 S. C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 6 7 4 . S i n c e th i s c l a i m l a c k s me r i t , Ry a n ’ s f a i l u r e t o r a i s e th i s c l a i m i n th e o r i g i n a l P CR p ro c e e d in g s d id n o t p re ju d ic e G ra y s o n . I

d. T hi s cl ai m does notm eetan exc ept i on t o the pr ocedur al bar s and s houl d be di s m i s s ed. 1 2
. Fa ilu re to o b

jec t to th e tr ia l co u rt’s fa ilu re to in str u c t th e ju ry th a t it shou ld co nsi der all

m i t iga t i on present ed, rather tha n just the statutory m i t igat i ng ci r cum s tances ¶81. G r ays on ar gues thathi s tr i al cou ns el r ender ed cons t i tut i onal l y i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance o f c o u n se l w h e n th e y fa iled a d e q u a tely to in stru c t th e ju ry re g a rd in g th e c o n sid e ra tio n o f a ll
m i t i gat i on evi dence . A s di s cus s ed above , “w e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe j ury w as uncons t i tut i onal l y f

or ecl os ed f

r om cons i der i ng al l m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s . ” B erry , 703 So. 2d at287. Si nce thi s cl ai m i s w i thoutm er i t , G r ays on cannotsus t ai n t he r equi r ed s how i ng of def i ci entper f

orm ance orpr ej udi ce t o es t abl i s h a cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr ia l/a p p e lla te c o u n s e l. W al ker , 863 So. 2d at17.

### 44

¶ 8 2 . S i n c e th i s c l a i m l a c k s me r i t , Ry a n ’ s f a i l u r e t o r a i s e th i s c l a i m i n th e o r i g i n a l P CR p ro c e e d in g s d id n o t p re ju d ic e G ra y s o n . Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U . S. a t68 7 , 10 4 S. Ct . 20 5 2 , 8 0 L. E d. 2d 674. T hi s cl ai m does notm eetan exc ept i on t o the pr ocedur al b ars an d shoul d be di s m i s s ed. 13. Fai l ur e to ob

j ectt o the tr i alcour t ’s f ai l ur e adequatel

y to i ns tr uct

the ju ry th a t a lif

e s e n ten c e w o u ld

b e a se n ten c e se rv e d

w ith o u t p a ro le e lig ib ili ty ¶83. G r ays on ar gues that hi s tr i al couns el r ender ed const i tut i onal l y i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el w hen they f

ai l ed ade quat el y t o i ns tructthe j ury t hata l i f e s ent ence w oul d be s erved
w i thoutpar ol e el i gi bi l i ty. A s di s cus s ed above , w e f i nd thatthe j ury w as a dequat el y i nf orm ed thata l i f e s ent ence w oul d be w i thoutpar ol e. Si nce thi s cl ai m i s w i thoutm er i t , G r ays on c a n n o t su sta in th e re q u ire d s h o w in g o f d e fic ien t p e rfo rm a n c e o r p re ju d ice to e sta b lish a c laim
o f i n e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f t ri a l/a p p e lla te c o u n s e l. W al ker , 863 So. 2d at17. ¶ 8 4 . S i n c e th i s c l a i m l a c k s m e r i t , R y a n ’ s f a i l u r e t o r a i s e th i s c l a i m i n th e o r i g i n a l P CR p ro c e e d in g s d id n o t p re ju d ic e G ra y s o n . Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U. S. a t6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . Ct . 2 0 5 2 , 8 0 L. E d. 2 d 67 4. T hi s cl ai m does notm eetan exc ept i on t o the pr ocedur al bar s and s houl d be di s m i s s ed. 14. C um ulat i ve pr ej udi ce ¶ 8 5 . G ra y so n a rg u e s th a t co u n se l’s d e fic ien t co n d u c t in d iv id u a lly a n d c o llec tiv e ly pr ej udi ced G r ays on. H e cont ends thatthe cumul at i ve ef f ectof thes e err or s r equi r es thathe be gr ant e d r e l i e f

. “ I n or de rf

orthe r e t o be a c umul a t i ve e f f e c to f e rr or s , the r e mus tf

i r s tbe
err or s . ” L o de n v. Sta te , 43 So. 3d 365, 394 ( M i s s . 2010) ( quot i ng W al ker , 86 3 S o . 2 d at 23 ).

### 45

G r ays on has f

ai l ed t o pr ove thathe i s e nt i t l ed t o a ny r el i ef on eac h of

hi s cl ai m s i ndi vi dual l y; w e l i kew i s e conc l ude thatG r ays on has f ai l ed t o prove t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o any r el i ef on s uch cl ai m s cumul at i vel y. Moti on f or A ccess ¶86. G r ays on s eeks a cce s s t o hi s e xpert s f orthe purpos e of

e val uati on , t est i ng , and any o th e r p u rp o se re a so n a b ly b e liev e d b y co u n se l as n e c e ss a ry fo r th e fu ll l iti g a tio n o f h is p o stco n v ict ion claim s. G ray so n stat es th a t th is m o ti o n is no t a req u est for fu n d s for e x p ert
a ss ista n c e . G ra y so n sta tes th a t th e S tate P e n iten tia ry a t P a rc h m a n , M iss iss ip p i, w h e re a ll pr i s oner s s ent ence d t o death ar e hous ed, w i l l notal l ow any def ens e expe r tt o vis i tsuch a pr i s onerw i thoutan or deral l ow i ng the vi s i tfr om a courtw i th j ur i s di ct i on. W hen the pr i s oner se e k s s u c h a n o rd e r, th e M iss iss ip p i A tto rn e y G e n e ra l’s d e a th -p e n a lty d iv isio n o p p o se s it. ¶87. G r ays on ar gues that , w i t ho utacc es s t o hi s expert s , he unf ai r l y w i l l be deni ed the
o p p o rtu n ity to d e v e lo p th e e v id e n c e re q u ire d to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro o f in h is p o stconvi ct i on pr ocee di ngs , and hi s r i ght s t o due pr oces s w i l l be vi ol at ed. G r ays on al s o ar gues th a t th e c o n tin u e d d e n ial o f a c c e ss to h is e x p e rts h in d e rs h is a ttem p ts to ra ise c la im s in h is fe d e ra l ha bea s corpus proceed i ng s, w hich con st i tutes the d enial of access t o co urt s. ¶88 . P ursuantt o the PC R A ct , any m oti on seeki ng po st -convict i on coll at eral reli ef m ust cont ai n “[ a] conci s e st at ementof the cl ai m s orgr ounds upon w hi ch the mot i on i s bas ed, ” and
m u st c o n tain ( d) A s epar at e s t at ementof the s peci f

i c f act s w hi ch ar e w i t hi n the per s onal k n o w le d g e o f t h e p e titio n e r a n d w h ic h s h a ll b e s w o r n to b y th e p e titio n e r . . .

.

### Sec ti on 99-39- 9(4) of the Mi ss is sippi Codestat es : “ If themotion rec eived by the 11 

### cl er k does not s ubst antially com ply with t he require ments of

this s ec ti on, it s hal l bere tur ned to t he pe titi oner

i f a judgeof

the court so direc ts , together with a s tate ment of

there as on for it s ret urn. The cl er

k shal l re tain a copy of themotion s o re tur ned. ” Mi ss . CodeAnn. § 99- 39- 9(a) (S up p. 2 01 2). Rule 2 2(a) o f the M ississipp i Ru les of App ellate Pro ce dure states, in pertinent part: “I f any appl ic ation f ai ls to com

ply subs tanti al ly wit

h the st at ute , the c lerk of theSupremeCourt

shallgivewritt en noti ceof the def ault, apprais ing theparty of the nature of the de fi ci enc y. I f the def ic ienci es arenot correc te d within thir ty days , theappli cati on may be di smis se d.”M.R. A.P 22( a) . Thi s di smis sal woul d be without pre judi ce . 46 ( e ) A s p e c i f

i c s t a t e m e n to f

th e f a c t s w h i c h a r e n o tw i t h i n th e p e t i t i o n e r 's p e rs o n a l k n o w le d g e . The m ot i on s hal ls tat e how orby w hom s ai d f act s w i l lbe pr oven. A

f f i davi t s of the w i tnes s es who w i l lt es t i f y and copi es of

docum ent

s or r ecords thatw i l lb e o

f f er ed s hal lbe at tached to the m ot i on . T he af f i davi t s of otherper s ons and the copi es of document s and re cor ds m ay be e xcus ed upon a show i ng , w hich shal l be spec i fi cal l y d et ai l ed in th e m oti on , of goo d cau se w hy they ca nnotbe obt ai ned. T hi s s how i ng s hal l s t at e w hatthe pet i t i onerhas done t o a t t emptt o obt ai n the af f i davi t s , r ecor ds a nd doc um ent s , the pr oduct i on of w hi ch he r eques t s the courtt o excus e. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -9 (S u p p . 2 0 1 2 ) (e m p h a sis ad d e d ). If a p e tit io n e r fa ils to su p p o rt h is
m ot i on adequa t el y w i th evi dence , the mot i on m ay be s um m ar i l y di s m i s s ed. M i s s . C ode A nn. § § 9 9 -3 9 -1 1 , 9 9 -3 9 -2 7 (S u p p . 2 0 1 2 ). A n y late r a ttem p ts a d e q u a tely to su p p o rt a c laim 11
w h ic h p re v io u s ly h a s b e e n s u m m a ri ly d is m is s e d m a y b e p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . Se e , e .g ., M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 7 (9 ) (S u p p . 2 0 1 2 ). T h e re fo re , itis o f th e u tm o st im p o rta n c e th a t a pr i s oneradequa t el y s uppor tthe cl ai m s r ai s ed i n hi s PC R m ot i on w i th evi dence . ¶89. W hi l e the PC R A ctdoes cont ai n a pr ovi s i on al l ow i ng di s covery, i n or dert o be perm i t t ed li m i t ed di s covery, the pet i t i oner ’ s PC R m ot i on al r eady musthave s urvi ved
su m m a ry d ism iss a l. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -1 5 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). In d e a th -p e n a lty c a se s, R u le 22 (c) (4) (i i ) of

the M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of A pp el l at e P rocedu re s t at es:

### 47

U p o n a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n se l, orth e d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e p e tit io n e r is r epr es ent ed by pr i vat e couns el the pet i t i oner ' s pr i ortr i al and appe l l at e couns el sh a ll m a k e a v a ilab le to th e p e tit io n e r' s p o st-c o n v ictio n c o u n se l th e ir c o m p lete f i l es r el at i ng t o the convi ct i on and s ent ence . T he St at e, t o the ext ental l ow ed by la w , sh a ll m a k e a v a ilab le to p o st-c o n v ictio n c o u n se l th e c o m p lete files o f a ll l aw enf or cementand pr os ecut or i al agenc i es i nvol ved i n t he i nves t i gat i on of the cri m es com m i t t ed an d the prosecut i on of the p eti t i on er. If the S t at e has a r ea s on a bl e b e l i e f

tha ta l l owi ng i ns pe c t i on o f a ny p ort i on o f

the f i l es by pos t - convi ct i on couns el f orthe pet i t i onerw oul d notbe i n the i nt er es tof j us t i ce, t he St a t e may s ub mi tf

ori ns pe c t i on by the c on vi c t i ng c ou r ttho s e po r t i on s of the f i l es s o i dent i f

i ed. I f upon exami nat i on of

the f i l es , the courtf

i nds thats uch por t i ons of

the f i l es coul d notas s i s tthe capi t al p et i t i oneri n i nves t i gat i ng, p re p a rin g , o r p re se n tin g a m o tio n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lie f, th e c o u rt in its d iscreti o n m ay all o w the S tat e to w ith h o ld tha t po rt ion o f th e fi les. D isco v ery and compul s ory pr oces s m ay be a l l ow ed the pet i t i onerf r om and af

t erthe appoi ntm entof pos t - convi ct i on counse l or the det erm i nat i on thatthe pet i t i oner i s r epr es ent ed by pr i vat e couns el ororis p roceedi ng pr o s e, butonl y upon m ot i on i ndi cat i ng the purpos e of s uch di s covery and t hatsuch di s covery i s not f r i vol ous and i s l i kel y t o be hel pf ul i n the i nves t i gat i on, pr epar at i on or pr es ent at i on of

s peci f i c i s s ues w hi ch the pet i t i oneri n good f ai th bel i eves t o be i n ques t i on and pr operf

orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef , and or dere nt er ed i n the s ound d isc re tio n o f th e c o u rt. U p o n d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e p e titio n e r h a s e lec ted to p ro c e e d p ro se , su c h files a n d d isc o v e ry s h a ll b e m a d e a v a ilab le a s p ro v id e d in s ubs ect i on ( 2) ( i i i ) above. M . R . A . P . 2 2 (c)(4)(ii ). ¶90. W e have hel d thatPC R pr ocee di ngs i n death- penal ty cas es ar e a c r i t i cal s t age of the d e a th -p e n a lty a p p e a l p ro c e s s a t th e s ta te le v e l. Jacks on , 732 So. 2d at191. T he deni al of an oppor tuni ty t o pr es enta pr oper l y s uppor t ed mot i on see ki ng pos t - convi ct i on col l at er al r el i ef is , in e ff e c t, th e d e n ia l o f m e a n in g fu l a c c e s s to th e c o u rt s . I d. a t 1 9 0 ; s ee al

s o R u ss e ll , 819 So. 2d at1177- 1180. ¶91. T he St at e r es ponds t o G r ays on’ s “M ot i on f orA cce s s ” by ar gui ng thatG r ays on i s not ent i t l ed t o the ef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el i n PC R proc eedi ngs . T he St at e’ s ar gum enthas

### 48

been r ej ect ed as di s cus s ed above . T he St at e makes no otherar gum enti n oppos i t i on t o the
m ot i on f oracc es s . I ns t ead, t he St at e r es ponds : “[ i ] n t he eve ntthe C our tgr ant s the mot i on, the r es pondentr es pect f ul l y r eques t s thatthe pet i t i onerbe r equi red t o compl y w i th the M i ssi ssi pp i D epartm ent of C orr ect i on s rul es and regulat i on s con cerni ng exp ertevaluat i on s. Such compl i ance w oul d i ncl ude, buti s notl i m i t ed t o, s uf f i ci entnot i ce and s chedul i ng dur i ng n o rm a l b u s in e s s h o u rs .” ¶92. R ece nt l y, w e addr es s ed thi s i s s ue i n Mo ffe tt v. S ta te , 20 11 -D R -0002 8-SC T (A ug ust 3 1 , 2 0 1 2 , o rd e r). T h e o rd e r sta tes , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: A s a m a tter o f d u e p ro c e s s , M o ffe tt sh o u ld b e a llo w e d a c c e ss to h is e x p e rts s ubj ectt o t he rul es and r egul at i ons of the M D O C . B eca us e M D O C ’ s rul es and r egul at i ons pr es ent l y r equi r e a c our tor der , M D O C s houl d be not i ced w i th the r e qu e s tf ora c c e s s a nd a f

f or de d a n o pp ortun i ty t o s ho w c a us e w hy i t s pr e s ent po l i ci es do n ot vi olat e peti t i on er’ s due p rocess ri gh t s. I d. See a l

so S im m o n s v. S ta te , 2012- D R - 00801- SC T ( J une 5, 2012, or der ) . W e s t ayed M o ffe tt’s p e n d in g p o st-c o n v ictio n c o llate ra l re lief p ro c e e d in g s “ u n til su c h tim e a s M D O C is hear d i n the pr ocee di ngs r egar di ng pet i t i oner ’ s due pr oces s cl ai m s . . . . ” I d. In re sp o n se to the or der , M of

f etta nd the St at e ent er ed i nt o a n “ A gr eed O r derA l l ow i ng A cce s s . ” Ther ef or e, th e M iss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s s u b m itt e d n o a rg u m e n t re g a rd in g w h e th e r its presentpo l i ci es vi olat e peti t i on ers ’ due-process ri gh t s. ¶93. Pr i s oner s s ent ence d t o death s houl d be grant ed ac ces s t o thei rexpert s s o l ong as the
acc es s compl i es w i th the rul es a nd r egul at i ons of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof C orr ect i ons and so l on g as tho se rules and regu l at i on s do n ot vi olat e peti t i on ers ’ due-process ri gh t s. G rayson i s hereby g rant ed leave t o p roceed in the cir cuitcou rtw i th a m oti on foraccess.

### 49 CO NC L US I ON ¶94. PC R pet i t i oner s w ho have be en s ent ence d t o d eat h do h ave ar i ghtt o the ef f ect i ve assistan ce o f P C R co u n sel. G ray so n ’s co u n sel i n h is f ir st PC R p roc ee d ing s b efo re this C o u rt
r endered def

i ci entper f

orm ance . H ow ever , G r ays on has f ai l ed t o s how thatthi s def i ci ent per f orm ance prej ud i ced hi m . T her ef or e, G r ays on’ s cl ai m thathe r ece i ved i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

PC R couns el i s w i thoutm er i t . G r ays on ha s f ai l ed t o s how thathi s c l ai m s m eet any exc ept i ons t o the pr ocedur al bar s , and hi s “M ot i on f orLeave t o Fi l e Succe s s orPet i t i on f orPost - C onvi ct i on R el i ef ” i s her eby di s m i s s ed as pr ocedur al l y barr ed. ¶9 5. G r a ys on i s h e r e by g r a nt e d l e a ve t o pr oc e e d i n the c i r c ui tc ou r twi th a mot i on f or acc es s . A s a m att erof due pr oces s , G r ays on shoul d be al l ow ed acc es s t o hi s expert s , s ubj ect t o the rules and regul at i on s of the M i ssi ssi pp i D epartm ent of C orr ect i on s ( M D O C ). B ecause M D O C ’s ru les a n d re g u latio n s p re se n tly re q u ire a c o u rt o rd e r, M D O C sh o u ld b e n o tice d w ith the r eques tf

oracc es s and af

f or ded an opportuni ty t o s how caus e w hy i t s pr es entpol i ci es do
no tviol at e peti t i on er’ s due-process r i gh t s. ¶96. M O TI ON FOR LEAVE TO FI LE S UCC ES S OR PET I TI ON FOR POSTCONVI CT I ON RE LI EF I S DI S M I S S ED AS P ROCE DURAL LY B ARRE D. LE AVE T O P R O C E E D IN T H E C IR C U IT C O U R T W IT H A M O T IO N F O R A C C E S S IS GRANT ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , RANDOL P H, P . J . , KI T CH E NS , CH ANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND CO LEM AN, J J . , CO NCU R. DI CK I NSON, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RES ULT ON LY W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.