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 0 - KA- 0 1 5 8 1 - S CT TRA VI SKEI THLEY a

/ k / a TRA VI

SLEE KEI THLEY
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 20/ 2010 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M AR GAR E T CA RE Y- M CC RA Y COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ASHI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : LESL I E S. LEE J US T I N T AYL OR CO OK P HI L L I P BR OADHE AD AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : S T E P HANI E BR E L AND W OOD S COTT S TUART DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: W I L L I E DE W AYNE RI CH AR DS ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM 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. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. I n thi s appea l f

r om hi s convi ct i on f

or aggr avat ed as s aul t , T r avi s K ei thl ey ar gues that i tw as pl ai n err ort o admi ti nt o evi dence the “s t at ement s ” of t w o anonym ous peopl e, thatthe
ver di ctw as nots uppor t ed by the ev i dence, and thathe r ece i ved i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of
couns el
. Fi ndi ng no r ever s i bl e err or , w e aff i rm K ei thl ey’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence , and d is m is s h is in e ff

e c tiv e -a s s is ta n c e -o f- c o u n s e l c la im s w ith o u t p re ju d ic e .

### 2 T he E vi dence ¶2. T he m aj or i t y of t he i ncul pat ory e vi de nc e w a s pr e s e nt e d t o the j ury thr ough t he t es t i m ony of

the compl ai ni ng w i tnes s , Ti m othy Thom as . T hom as t es t i f i ed that , on the ni ght of M ar ch 7, 2009, as he w as l eavi ng a s t or e i n L el and, M i s s i s s i ppi , K ei thl ey conf r ont ed T hom as , acc us i ng hi m of “t al ki ng noi s e. ” T hom as r es ponded thatK ei thl ey musthave ha d h im c o n fu se d w ith so m e o n e e lse , w h e re u p o n T h o m a s tu rn e d to w a lk a w a y . A c c o rd in g to T hom as , K ei thl ey began f ol l ow i ng hi m , a nd w hen Thom as turned ar ound, K ei thl ey pul l ed outa handgun a nd began s hoot i ng athi m . Thom as t es t i f i ed thathe had tr i ed t o run aw ay, but tr i pped and f

el l t o the gr ound. A l r eady w ounded, Thom as l ooked up a nd s aw K ei t hle y sta n d in g o v e r h im . K e ith ley sh o t T h o m a s o n c e m o re a n d fle d . S e v e ra l b y sta n d e rs c a m e to T hom as ’ s ai d, and Thom as t es t i f i ed that , j us tbef

or e l os i ng cons ci ous ness, h e tol d an
u n id e n tif ie d m a n th a t h e h a d b e e n s h o t. I n a ll, T h o m a s s u ff e re d s ix g u n s h o t w o u n d s . ¶3. T hom as aw oke i n an i ntensi ve care un i t(I C U ) of t he U ni ver s i ty of M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cal C enter . O n the s econd da y of hi s hos pi t al i zat i on, G l or i a R odger s of the Lel and Pol i ce D epartm enti nt ervi ew ed Thom as aboutthe s hoot i ng. T hom as w as unabl e t o s peak but g a v e a h a n d w ri tte n s ta te m e n t id e n tif y in g K e ith le y a s h is a tta c k e r. ¶4. O f

f i cer R odger s had been one of the f i r s t l aw enf

or cement of

f i ci al s t o r es pond t o the
s hoot i ng i nci dent
. She t es t i f i ed attr i al t hat , w hen she arr i ved, she and he rf el l ow of f i cer s had to m ak e th e ir w ay thro u g h a c row d that h ad g athe red after th e sh o o ti n g . W h en R o d g ers re a c h e d T h o m a s , h e w a s ly in g o n th e g ro u n d a n d w a s u n re s p o n s iv e .

### 3

¶ 5 . O ffic e r R o d g e rs a ttem p ted to g a th e r in fo rm a tio n fro m se v e ra l p e o p le a t th e sc e n e ; b u t,
a c c o r d i n g t o h e r , mo s to f th e m w e r e a f

r a i d t o g e ti n v o l v e d
. Ho we v e r , s h e d i d f i n d two peopl e w ho wer e wi l l i ng t o t a l k w i th he ro n c on di t i on o f a no ny mi ty. Rodge r s g ave no t es t i m ony aboutw hatt hes e tw o peopl e had t ol d her , and the onl y r el evantexcha nge dur i ng her di rectexam i nati on w as as f oll ow s: P ro se c u to r: A n d w e re y o u a b le to g e t co o p e ra tio n fro m a n y o n e ? W o u ld

they t al k t o you? R o d g e rs: W e ll, I h a d a c o u p le o f p e o p le to ta lk to m e , b u t th e y w a n ted to

rem ai n an on ym ou s. P rose cu tor: W ell , d u ri n g the c o u rse o f yo u r i n v esti g ati o n th a t n igh t, w ere

y o u a b le to e sta b lish a su sp e c t? R od gers: Y es. P ro se c u to r: A n d w h o w a s th a t su sp e c t? R odger s : T r avi s K ei thl ey. ¶6. R odger s t es t i f

i ed that the onl y phys i cal evi dence r ecove r ed at the s cene cons i s t ed of
one s pent. 380 cartr i dge cas i ng a nd tw o i nk pens
. N one of thes e i t ems w as everconnec t ed t o the cr i m e. R odger s al s o gav e t es t i m ony thatconf i r m ed Thom as ’ s acc ountof hi s w r i t t en s ta te m e n t g iv e n in th e IC U . ¶7. K ei thl ey di d not t es t i f y or cal l any w i tnes s es on hi s behal f
. T he j ury f

ound K ei thl ey gui l ty of aggr avat ed as s aul t , and he w as s ent ence d t o f i f t een ye ar s i n cus t ody, w i th thi r t een y e a rs to s e rv e a n d tw o y e a rs o f s u p e rv is e d p ro b a tio n .

### 4 N o appar ent

er r ors tem s f

r om R odgers ’s tes tim ony. ¶ 8 . Ke i th l e y a r g u e s t h a tOf f i c e r Ro d g e r s ’ s t e s t i mo n y ( q u o t e d a b o v e ) r e g a r d i n g t h e two an o n y m o u s p eo p le w h o tal k ed to h er a t th e sc en e w as ra n k h ea rsay that v iolated K eith ley’s
cons t i tut i onal ri ghtt o conf r onthi s accus er s . U . S. C ons t . am end. V I ; M i s s . C ons t . art . 3 § 26. B e c a u se th e re w a s n o o b jec tio n , re v e rsa l is u n w a rra n ted a b se n t p lain e rro r. “T o c o n stitu te pl ai n err or , the tr i al courtm us thave de vi at ed f r om a l egal rul e, the err ormustbe pl ai n, cl ear orobvi ous , and t he err orm us thave pr ej udi ced the out come of the tr i al
. ” Cox v. S ta te , 793 So. 2d 591, 599 (M i ss. 2 001) ( ci t i ng G ru b b v. S ta te , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 7 8 6 , 7 8 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ); P o rte r v . S ta te , 7 4 9 S o . 2 d 2 5 0 , 2 6 0 -6 1 (M is s . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ))
. ¶9. W e are u n ab le to dis cern plai n err or res ult i ng fr om R od gers’ s t est i m on y. C on trary to K e ith ley ’s c h a ra c ter iza tio n o f th e te stim o n y , R o d g e rs d id n o t tes tify th a t th e tw o p e o p le
w ho i dent i f

i ed K ei thl ey as the s hoot erw er e eye w i tnes s es . M or eover , s he di d notconvey a ny s t at ement s oras s ert i ons m ade by the tw o a nonym ous pe opl e, e i therdi r ect l y ori ndi r ect l y, and
s he di d no treveal the s ubs t ance of herconver s at i ons w i th them. M . R . E . 801( a) ( I n the cont extof

hear s ay, “[ a] ‘ s t at em ent’ is (1) a n or al orw r i t t en as s ert i on or( 2) nonverbal
c o n d u c t of

a p e rso n if i t is in ten d e d b y th e p e rso n a s a n a ss e rtio n .”); U nited States v. Meis es , 6 4 5 F . 3 d 5 , 2 1 -23 (1st C ir
. 2 0 1 1 ) (ho lding that, u n d er Cr aw f or d v. W as hington , 54 1 U. S. 36, 124 S. C t . 1354, 158 L . E d. 2d 177 ( 2004) , the C onf r ont at i on C l aus e i s i m pl i cat ed i f the
s ubs tance o f th e o u t- o f-co u rtac cu sati o n s is r ev ea led). ¶1 0. R odger s ’ s con f

i r mat i on tha tK e i thl e y h a d b e c ome a s us pe c t“ du r i ng the c ou r s e of [ her ] i nves t i gat i on, ” w as i m m edi at el y pr ece ded by hers t at ementthats he “ha d a coupl e of

### Our opinion s hould not be rea d as blanket

approvalof l awye rs ’ a sking witnes se s 1 

### wh at theylearned , or co nclu ded , or d id as a result o f a conversatio n. S uchtestimony mu st be e valuat ed f

or i ts re alpurpos e; and i f the a pparent purpos e i s to infor

m t he j ury of

the content o r impo rt of an out-of-co urt statement, it shou ld be treated as any o ther h earsay. See Sw ind le v. Sta te , 50 2 S o. 2 d 6 52 , 65 7 (M iss. 19 87 ) (conversati onof in formant gen erally ina dmi ss ibl e whe repart of State ’s deve lopm ent

of proof onth e me ri ts , but not in othe r circ ums tance s f

or other purpos es ); Mei

se s , 64 5 F . 3dat 21 (un der th e Six th Amendment, “[i]t makes no differen ce that th e go vernment to okcare no t to introduce [th e declarant’s] ‘a ct ualst at em ent s’
. . . . [I ] f what t he j ury he ar s i s, in s ubst anc e, anuntes te d, out -of -c ourt ac cus ation against

thedef endant, parti cul arly i f the inculpato ry st at em ent is ma de to law enf orc em ent authori ti es , the de fe ndant ’s Sixt h Amendment right

to c onfront t

he de cl arant is trigge re d.” ). 5 p eo p le t alk to [her]. ” O n ex am ination of th is ex ch an g e o u t o f con text, on e arg u ab ly c o u ld h av e su g g ested that the tw o an o n y m o u s p erso n s h a d id en ti fi ed K eith ley a s the sh o o ter. H ow e ve r , j us tbe f

or e the t e s t i mony a ti s s ue , Rodge r s ha d g i ve n a de t a i l e d a c c ou ntof he r act i ons tha tn i gh t , a nd i ti s c l e a rtha th e ri nv e s t i ga t i on i nv ol ve d much mor e than a
conver s at i on w i th thes e tw o peopl e. T hus , exami ni ng hert es t i m ony as a w hol e, i ti s not ap pa r e nttha tthe t e s t i mony a ti s s ue was h e a r s a y ortha tthe u nn a med pe opl e coul d be classifi ed as a cc u sers. F o r th ese rea so n s, w e c an fi n d n o p lai n erro r arisi n g from R o d g ers’s t es t i m ony. 1 T he ver di ct

w as s upported by t

he evidence. ¶11. K ei thl ey ar gues that he i s ent i t l ed t o an acqui t t al or a new tr i al , chal l engi ng both the
s uf f i ci ency a nd the w ei ghtof the evi dence
. H i s ar gum ent s cent erar ound the al l eged i dent i f i cat i ons m ade by the anonymous “w i t ness es , ” the abs ence of any phys i cal evi dence

### 6

i m pl i cat i ng K ei thl ey as t he shoot er , and an unsubs t ant i at ed and hi ghl y spec ul at i ve cl ai m that th e v ic tim ’s te s tim o n y w a s u n re lia b le a n d a re s u lt o f b ia s . ¶12. R odger s ’ s t es t i m ony a boutthe tw o anon ym ou s byst and ers did not const i tut e an in a d m is s ib le id e n tif

ic a tio n , a n d , th e re fo re , d o e s n o t u n d e rm in e t h e v e rd ic t. I n a d d itio n , a c ri m in a l c o n v ic tio n d o e s n o t re q u ir e in c u lp a to ry p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e . See Mo o re v. S ta te , 933 So. 2d 910, 922-23 ( M i s s . 2006) ( bur gl ary convi ct i on notagai ns tthe w ei ghtof the evi dence
w her e ther e w as no phys i cal evidence tyi ng def endantt o cr i m e)
. Fi nal l y, any ques t i on reg ard ing the c red ibil ity o f a w itn ess is w h o ll y w ith in the p rov ince o f th e jury
. M o reo v er, T h o m a s’s ide n ti fi ca ti o n o f K eith ley a s the sh o o ter w as u n co n tr ad ict ed , as w as T h o m as’s
ac co u n t of th e e n ti re inc iden t. A s th e so le j u d g es o f his cre d ibil ity an d b eli ev ab il ity , the ju ry
w a s e n title d to a c c e p t o r r e je c t h is te s tim o n y . B lan ch a rd v. S ta te , 5 5 S o. 3d 1074, 1079 ( M i s s . 2011) ( ci t i ng Moo re , 933 So. 2d at922) )
. A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd no def

i ci enci es i n the
e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld w a rra n t a n e w trial o r a n a c q u itt a l. T he inef f ecti ve- as s is tance- of

- counse l claim is dis m is s ed w ithout pr ej udi ce. ¶ 1 3 . K e ith ley m a k e s n u m e ro u s a lleg a tio n s th a t h is a tto rn e y ’s p e rfo rm a n c e w a s d e fic ien t. Forexampl e, he ar gues thathi s att orney: fai l ed t o obj ectt o O f f i cerR odger s ’ s t es t i m ony, puton no evi dence i n hi s c l i ent ’ s de f ens e, di d notpur s ue an al i bi def ens e, m ade no obj ect i on t o the r el evanc e and i ntr oduct i on i nt o e vi dence of the
. 380 c artr i dge cas i ng a nd a f i ngerpr i nt
ca rd, an d fail ed to m ak e a d eq u ate p rep ara ti o n for tri al. Y et, thes e a ll eg ed d eficien cies a re
n o t “b a se d o n fa c ts fu lly a p p a re n t fro m th e re c o rd ,” a n d a re m o re a p p ro p ria te f o r p o stc o n v ic tio n re v ie w . M .R .A .P . 2 2 .

### 7

¶14. I n A rc h e r v . S ta te , 986 So. 2d 951 , 95 5 (M i ss. 20 08 ), t his C ou rtexpl ai ned w hy in e ffe c tiv e -a ss ista n c e -o f-c o u n se l cla im s a re se ld o m c a p a b le o f re v iew o n d ire c t ap p e a l: O rd in a rily , in e ffe c tiv e -a ss ista n c e -o f-c o u n se l cla im s a re m o re a p p ro p ria tely br oughtdur i ng pos t - conv i ct i on pr ocee di ngs . T hi s i s beca us e dur i ng di r ect a p p e a l s th e Co u r ti s l i mi t e d t o th e tr i a l c o u r tr e c o r d i n i t s r e v i e w o f th e c l a i m, and ther e may be i nst ance s i n w hi ch i ns uf f i ci entevi dence exi s t s w i thi n the re c o rd to a d d re s s th e c la im a d e q u a te ly
. W ilch e r v . S ta te , 863 S o. 2d 776, 825 (M iss. 20 0 3 ). In su ch a cas e, the a p p rop ri ate p roc ed u re i s t o de n y re li ef, p re se rv in g th e d e fe n d a n t’s rig h t to a rg u e th e iss u e th ro u g h a p e tit io n fo r p o stc o n v ic tio n re lie f. R e a d v. S ta te, 4 3 0 S o . 2 d 8 3 2 , 8 3 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). ¶15. I t i s cl ear that the cl ai m s r ai s ed by K ei thl ey on thi s i s s ue ar e not r evi ew abl e bas ed on th e re c o rd b e fo re u s. H e p o in ts to n o th in g in th e re c o rd th a t su p p o rts h is c la im th a t h is att orney f

ai l ed ade quat el y t o pr epar e f ortr i al
. N othi ng i n the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatther e w as evi dence t o s uppor tany part i cul ardef ens e, es peci al l y an al i bi def ens e. A l though K ei thl ey sa y s th a t h is m o th e r c o u ld h a v e p ro v id e d fa v o ra b le te stim o n y , n o th in g b e fo re u s s u p p o rts th is
as s ert i on. A s f

ort he att orney’ s fa i l ur e t o obj ectt o t he cartr i dge cas i ng and a fi ngerpr i ntcar d, K ei t hl e y d oe s no te xp l a i n h ow t hi s e vi de nc e w a s pr e j ud i c i a l , a nd i ti s no tc l e a rw he ther
r el evanc e w oul d have be en a vi abl e obj ect i on. ¶1 6. B eca us e thes e al l eged d e f i c i e nc i e s r e qu i r e p r oo f

tha ti s n oti n t he r ecor d on di r ect appea l , w e f

i nd t hat , i n accor dance w i th A r cher , 986 So. 2d at955, K ei thl ey’ s i nef f ect i vea ss ista n c e -o f-c o u n se l cla im s d o n o t w a rra n t re v e rsa l at th is s tag e a n d a re p re se rv e d sh o u ld the d efendan tw i sh t o rai se these i ssues i n p ost -convict i on -r el i ef pr oceed i ng s.

### 8 Conclusion ¶1 7. W e f

i nd no err orr equi r i ng r ever s al
. O ff i cer R odger s ’ s t es t i m ony w as not inad m issi b le he arsa y a n d d id n o t vio lat e K eith ley’s righ t t o co n fron t his acc u sers. M o reo v er, th e v e rd ict w a s su p p o rte d b y th e e v id e n c e , an d a n y iss u e s re g a rd in g th e v ictim ’s c re d ib ili ty
w er e r es ol ved by the j ury. Fi nal l y, K ei thl ey’ s uns ubs t ant i at ed cl ai m s thathi s tr i al couns el
w as def i ci entar e di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce a nd ar e pr es erved f orpos t -convi ct i on r el i ef
co n side rati o n , sh o u ld an y b e so u g h t. A cc o rdin g ly, K eith ley’s c o n v ict ion an d sen tenc e a re af f i r m ed. ¶18. CO NV I CT I ON OF AG GR A V A T E D A S S A U L T A N D S E N T E N C E OF F I F TE EN ( 1 5 ) YE ARS I N T HE CUS TODY OF T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T O F C O R R E C T I O N S, W I T H TH I R T E E N ( 13) Y E A R S T O SE R V E A N D T W O ( 2) YE ARS OF S UP ER VI S ED P ROBA TI ON, AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , DI CKI NS ON AN D R AN DO L P H, P . J J . , L AMAR , CH AN DL E R, P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.