I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 3 - CT - 0 0 7 1 6 - S CT OLI V ER J OH NS, J R.

v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 3/ 6/ 2003 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. M I KE SM I TH COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: P I KE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: N A T U R E O F T H E C A S E : DI S P OS I T I ON: PRO SE OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : J EFFR EY A
. K LI N G FU SS DEE B ATES CI VI L - POST CON VI CTI ON RELI EF R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 04/ 06/ 2006
EN BA NC. GR AVES, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. In N o v e m b e r, 1 9 9 6 , O liv e r Jo h n s w a s c o n v icte d o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt in th e C irc u it C our tof Pi ke C ount yand w as s ent ence d t o t w ent yy ear s i n pr i s on. J o h n s ap p eal ed t he convi ct i on, and t he C our tof A ppeal s aff i r m ed t he t r i al cour t
. T hi s C our t deni ed t he pet i t i on f o r w ri t o f

c e rt io ra ri f

ile d in J o h n s ’s d ir e c t a p p e a l. ¶2. Foll o w i ng t he deni al of hi s di r ect appea l , J ohns fi l ed a pet i t i on forpos t - convi ct i on
r el i ef. W e gr ant ed J ohns ’ s pet i t i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef. A ft er an evi dent i ar yhear i ng
w as hel d i n t he t r i al cour t , J ohns ’ s m ot i on fo r pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef w as deni ed. J ohns

### 2

appea l ed t he deni al of hi s m ot i on. T he C our tof A ppeal s aff i r m ed t he j udgm ent of t he t r i al

cour tand deni ed r ehea r i ng on Ju ly 2 6 , 2 0 0 5. W e gr ant ed J ohns ’ s pet i t i on forw r i tof

c e rtio ra ri. W e f

in d th a t J o h n s d id n o t re c e iv e c o n stitu tio n a llye f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l. W e r ever s e t he j udgm ent s of t he C our tof A ppeal s and the Pi ke C ount yC i r cui tC our t , and

w e re m a n d th is c a se f

o r a n e w trial. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶ 3
. O n S e p tem b e r 2 0 , 1 9 9 6 , O liv e r Jo h n s w a s in d icte d b y th e G ra n d Ju ry o f P ik e C o u n ty fort he off

ens es of aggr avat ed as s aul tand s hoot i ng i nt o a v ehi cl e. T he r ecor d r evea l s t hat t he vi ct i m of t he ass aul t w as s hot i n t he fi nger and re qui r ed st i t ches
. L es s t han t w o m ont hs

a f ter h e w a s in d icte d , Jo h n s’s trial w a s h e ld , a n d h e w a s c o n v icte d o f th e a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt. J o h n s w a s s e n te n c e d to s e rv e tw e n ty y e a rs in p ri s o n . ¶4. T he aggr avat ed as s aul t for w hi ch J ohns w as convi ct ed happe ned s om e t i m e bet w een 8 : 0 0 p . m. a n d 8 : 1 9 p . m. o n M a r c h 2 8 , 1 9 9 6 , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e v i c t i m, Ke n d a l l J e f f e r s o n . At 8: 19 t hateveni ng, t he pol i ce r ece i ved a c al l t hat t her e had been a s hoot i ng. J eff er s on t es t i fi ed t hatJ ohns pas s ed hi m ata park and t hen tur ned ar ound and fol l ow ed hi s car . W hen he a nd h is p a ss e n g e r, V in c e n t H o llo w a y , g o t to a sto p sig n , J e f f e rso n n o tice d th a t th e c a r w a s s til l behi nd hi m , and s hot s w er e fi r ed. J eff er s on t es t i fi ed t hathe di d nots ee w ho w as s hoot i ng, buthe w as cer t ai n t he s hot s w er e fi r ed fr om t he vehi cl e behi nd hi m t hat w as al l egedl ydr i ven byJ ohns
. O t herw i t nes s es t o t he s hoot i ng w er e R us har d H aynes , J eff er s on’ s cous i n, w ho w as dr i vi ng t he ca rt hat w as i m m edi at el y i n fr ont of Jef fer s on and w ho l eftt he s cene as s oon as

### 3

he re al i zed t hat s hot s w er e bei ng fi r ed. T he pass enger , V i ncent H ol l ow ay , has neverbeen f o u n d
. ¶5. A s a r es ul tof t he s hoot i ng, J eff er s on’ s fi nger w as i nj ur ed. H e dr ove t o t he hos pi t al im m e d iate lyf

o llo w in g th e sh o o tin g . W h e n o f f ice rs a rriv e d a t th e h o sp ital, Je f f e rso n w o u ld

n o t co o p e ra te w ith th e m b yp ro v id in g d e tails a b o u t th e sh o o tin g . W h e n h e d e c id e d to
c o o p e r a t e , h e t o l d t h e m J o h n s was t h e s h o o t e ra n d p r o c e e d e d t o d e s c r i b e J o h n s ’ s c a r . An offi cert hen w ent to Jo h n s’s hom e, and J ohns i dent i fi ed t he ca ras hi s vehi cl e. T he off i cer t es t i fi ed t hatw hen t heyexami ned J ohns ’ s car , t heyfound no guns hotr es i due, no bul l et s , no
cas i ngs , no guns , no fi ngerpr i nt s , and no ot her evi dence t hat a gun w as even shotfr om t he vehi cl e. T her e w as onl yJ eff er s on’ s t es t i m onyt hatt he s hot s w er e fi r ed fr om J ohns ’ s vehi cl e. J o h n s te s tif

ie d h e w a s a t h o m e w ith h is y o u n g d a u g h te r a t th e tim e o f th e s h o o tin g . ¶6. T he j ur ydel i ber at ed at l ength befor e t hey r etur ned a ver di ct of gui l t yon t he cha r ge of aggr avat ed as s aul t
. I nt er es t i ngl y , J ohns w as acqui t t ed on t he char ge of s hoot i ng i nt o a mot or
v e h ic le . O liv e r J o h n s b e g a n s e rv in g h is 2 0 y e a r s e n te n c e in 1 9 9 6
. ¶7
. Jo h n s filed a d ir ec t ap p ea l f rom the c o n v ict ion o f th e tri al co u rt
. T h e M issi ssipp i C o u rt
o f A p p e a ls a f

f i r m e d th e c o n v ic tio n , a n d th is C o u rt d e n ie d c e rt io ra ri
. J o h n s v . S ta te , 746 So. 2d 947 ( M i s s . A pp. 1999)
. J ohns t hen fi l ed an A ppl i cat i on for Post
- C onvi ct i on R el i ef, and w e gr ant ed J ohns ’ s appl i cat i on fort he purpos e of c onduct i ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng on th e is s u e o f

w h e th e r h e w a s d e n ie d e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. ¶8. O n F ebruar y18, 2003, an evi dent i ar yhear i ng w as hel d i n t he C i r cui tC our tof Pi ke C ount y . A tt he evi dent i ar yhear ing , three w itnes s es came for w ar d t o t es t i fyt hatt heys aw

### 4

J ohns w i t h hi s one- y earol d daught erar ound t he t i m e of t he s hoot i ng and t hatt he t w o of t hem h a d w a lk e d to a n d f

ro m a n e a rb ysto re d u rin g th a t tim e . T h e se w itn e ss e s p ro v id e d a f f id a v its

a n d tes tim o n yw h ich v e rif ied th a t th e yw e re w ill in g a n d a v a ilab le to tes tify a t Jo h n s’s trial, butw er e notcont act ed byJ ohns ’ s at t or ney r egar di ng t hei r t es t i m ony . J ohn J acks on ( J acks on)

w a s O liv e r Jo h n s’s a tto rn e y . H e tes tifie d a t th e e v id e n tiary he a r in g stric tlyf ro m h is

r ecol l ect i on. W hen aske d i f he m ade a sea r ch t o t r y t o fi nd hi s fi l e i n J ohns ’ s cas e w hen he beca m e aw ar e t hatt he dist ri ct a tt or ney ’ s offi ce w ant ed hi m t o t es t i fy , hi s r es pons e w as
u n e q u iv o c a lly “ N o .” ¶9. Ja c k so n re p e a ted ly sta ted he d i d n ot r em em ber speci fi c detai l s r egardi ng h is

r epr es ent at i on of Johns
. H e di d, how ever , r emem ber( 1) goi ng t o t he s cene of t he s hoot i ng, and ( 2) t al ki ng t o t w o peopl e w ho m ay have been w i t nes s es , but he di d not r emem berw ho th e yw e re . ¶10. T he t r i al cour tj udge deni ed Joh n s’s m o ti o n fo r p o st- convi ct i on r el i ef, fi ndi ng Ja c k so n ’s a ss ista n c e w a s e f f e c tiv e . In m a k in g th is f

in d in g , the trial c o u rt ju d g e re lied o n h is p erso n al kn o w led g e o f Ja ck so n , stat ing “the tr ial s tha t he’s tri ed in m yco u rt , there ’s abs ol ut el yno doubtaboutJ ohn J acks on’ s t rut h and ver aci t y . I have y ett o fi nd J ohn ( J acks on) t el l m e anyt hi ng t hatdi d not add up or. . . w as n’ ts o. ” Fourm ont hs l at er , J acks on
w as i ndi ct ed fort he s al e of mar i j uana w i t hi n a cor r ect i onal fac i l i t y and w as l at erconvi ct ed and s ent ence d t o s er ve a t er m of t hr ee y ear s i n t he cus t odyof t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epar t m entof C o rre c tio n s. H e is p re se n tlysu sp e n d e d f ro m th e p ra c tice o f

law , p e n d in g th e a p p e a l o f h is

### 5

c o n v ic tio n . If

h is c o n v ic tio n is n o t o v e rt u rn e d h e w ill b e d is b a rr e d
. Mis s is s i ppiB arv. Jacks on , 9 0 4 S o .2 d 1 0 9 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶1 1
. O li v er Jo h n s ap p ea led the d en ial o f h is m o ti o n fo r p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef
. T h e C o u rt
o f A p p e a ls a f

f irm e d th e tr ia l c o u rt. Jo h n s f iled a p e tit io n f

o r w rit o f

c e rtio ra ri w ith th is C ou rt
. W e grant ed cert i orar i t o final l ydeter m i ne the i ssue of w hether John s’ s co un sel w as, i ndeed, i neff

ect i ve. W e tur n now t o a di s cus s i on of J acks on’ s per for m ance . ¶12. A ccor di ng t o J ohns , he r et ai n ed the s er vi ces of J acks on a fe w day s aft erhe w as
a rre ste d . Jo h n s a p p ro a c h e d Ja c k so n a t a r e tail sto re w h e n h e o v e rh e a rd h im talk in g a b o u t a l egal m att er. Jacks on di d nothave a l aw offi ce, s o al l of t he meet i ngs w i t h hi s cl i ent regar ding his repr esent at i on t oo k place at ei t her t he co urt ho use or atM cD on al d’s. V anessa W i l l i ams, O l i ver J ohns ’ s m ot her , pr ovi ded t es t i m ony t hat s he m et J acks on once a nd as ked hi m i f he ha d an off

i ce. J acks on s ai d he di d not
. She as ked hi m for a bus i nes s car d, and J acks on s ai d he di d noth ave one . W i l l i ams t hen as ked hi m how he coul d be r eac hed, and Jac k so n told h er h e c o u ld n o t give h er a n u m b er. ¶13. T he dayaft erm eet i ng hi m att he r et ai l s t or e, O l i verJ ohns , J r . m etw i t h J acks on at t he lo c a l M c D o n a ld ’s a n d e m p lo y e d Ja c k so n b yp a y in g h im $ 5 0 0 .0 0 . Jo h n s r e c a ll e d th a t th is

m eet i ng w i t h J acks on l as t ed l es s t han for t y - fi ve m i nut es . T he $500 at t or ney fee w as pai d by J ohns forr epr es ent at i on ata pr el i m i nar yhear i ng; how ever , J acks on l at erca ll ed J ohns and t ol d hi m t hatt he pr el i m i nar yhear i ng w as not i m por t ant , s o t hey w oul d not have i t
. O l i ver J ohns pr ovi ded t es t i m onyt hathe hi r ed J acks on aft erhe ( J ohns ) had bee n i ndi ct ed, ar r es t ed, and had bonde d out of j ai l
. T hat he char ged hi m for a pre l i m i nar yhear i ng m eans ei t hert hat

### 6

h e d id n o t ev e n tak e th e tim e to d e ter m in e Jo h n s’ h a d a lr e a d y b e e n in d icte d , o r h e sim p ly

w ant ed ca s h. I ti s el ement aryt hatt her e i s no nece s s i t yfora pr el i m i nar yhear i ng a f t eran in d ictm e n t. ¶14. O n O ct ober1, 1996, t en day s aft erJ ohns ’ s i n d ict m en t, an or derw as ent er ed t hat

w ai ved J ohn’ s pr el i m i nar yhear i ng and s etan omni bus hear i ng for O ctob er10, 1996, ni ne day s lat er. T hi s O ct ober1 or dergave J acks on ni ne day s t o fi l e anypr e- t r i al m ot i ons on behal f of hi s cl i ent
. I n eff ect , J acks on w as expec t ed t o pr oper l yi nves t i gat e this ca s e and

u n c o v e r a n ye v id e n c e re la tin g to J o h n s ’s c h a rg e s in o n ly n in e d a y s . ¶15
. Ja c k so n d id n o t take any act i on t o del ay t he proceedings. A ft er being h ire d to

r epr es entJ ohns , he had a ppr oxi m at el y fi ft een day s t o obt ai n di s coveryfr om t he pr os ecut i on,
es t a b l i s h wha tt h e e v i d e n c e was , i n v e s t i g a t e t h e c a s e , a n d f i l e p r e - t r i a l mot i o n s . J a c k s on t es t i fi ed r egar di ng pr e- t r i al pr epar at i on: D o y ou have a m emory as y ou s i ther e t odayof di s cus s i ng t he di s coverym at er i al t haty ou got i n thi s case w i t h M r. John s? A
. I r emem berdi s cus s i ng t he cas e i n dept h w i t h hi m . B utl i ke I t ol d y ou, I ’ ve t r i ed over 1 0 0 ca ses s ince then an d I d o n ’t rem em b er this pa rt icular d aythat I discu ssed this M r. Jo h n s, n o , I d o n o t. Q
. T he phy s i cal evi dence i n t hi s cas e, t he phot ogr aphs , t he shel l cas i ngs , w hen w as t he fi rs tt i m e y ou ever show ed those i t em s t o M r. John s? A
. I do n ’trem em b er. Q
. D id y o u e v e r t a k e h im to th e c ri m e la b to s e e ..... A
. N o. Q
. D i d y ou evert ake hi m t o t he D
. A
. ’ s offi ce? A
. N o. Q
. D i d y ou ever get pr i nt s m ade of t he phot ogr aphs t hat w er e i n t he D
. A
. ’ s pos s es s i on? A
. N o w that, I do n ’trem em b er.This C ourt is not attem ptingto label Jack son ineffectiv e for not s how ingev idence, as it wa s 1 obv ious the state had

no ne. 

### 7 ¶16. A co u pl e of da y s aft ert he fi r s tm eet i ng, J ohns and hi s father , O l i verJo h n s, S r. ( J ohns , Sr
. ) m etw i t h J acks on atM cD onal d’ s . T hi s m eet i ng t ook pl ace befor e t he O ct ober 10 hear i ng. J ohns , Sr
. r eca l l ed t hatw hen he a s ked J acks on aboutt he ca s e, J acks on s ai d t hat

every t hi ng w as goi ng good. J acks on di d not s how t hem anydocument s r el at ed t o t he ca s e,
nordi d he s how t hem any evi dence r el at ed t o t he cas e. I n fac t , J acks on i nfor m ed t hem t hat 1 the S tat e h ad n o ev iden ce ag ains t O li v er Jo h n s, Jr. A t th is m ee ti n g , Jac k so n ask ed fo r m o re
m o n e y . J o h n s , S r. p a id J a c k s o n a n o th e r $ 1 0 0 0 .0 0
. ¶17. J acks on next m et w i t h t he J ohns ’ at t he C our t hous e on O ct ober 10, 1996, t he dayof t he omn ibu s h ear i ng. J ohns , Sr
. r emem ber ed J acks on t el l i ng hi m bas i cal l yt he s ame t hi ng aboutt he ca s e - - t hati tw as goi ng okay
. H e t es t i fi ed t hat at t he t i m e of the omni bus hear i ng he had al r eady t ol d J acks on t hat t he al i bi w i t nes s es had i nfor m at i on t hatw oul d hel p t hem and t hathe and O l i verJ ohns had pr ovi ded him w i t h t he w i t nes s es addr es s es . O l i verJ ohns

r e m e m b e r s t h a tJ a c k s o n t o l d h i m t h a tt h e w i t n e s s e s w e r e n o ti m p o r t a n t
. A s w a s c u s t o m a r y, J acks on r eques t ed eve n m or e moneyfr om t he J ohns ’ and, t hi s t i m e, w as pai d $500. 00. ¶18. O l i ver J ohns ’ s m ot her , V anes s a W i l l i ams, pr ovi ded t es t i m ony t hat s he m etJ acks on once be caus e O l i verJ ohns had t o paym or e l egal fee s . She as ked J acks on i f he ha d s poken

w i t h t he w i t nes s es . J acks on told h er h e d i d nothave a nyt r ans por t at i on att hatt i m e s o he coul d notgetar ound. H e told he rhe w as pl anni ng t o bor r ow hi s gi r l fr i end’ s carand he

w oul d go s ee the w i t nes s es t hen.

### 8

¶19. A tt he omni bus hear i ng on O ct ober 10, t he mat t erw as s etfort r i al on N ovember 8, 1996, l es s t han a mont h l at er. Jo h n s’s case m oved fr om i ndi ct m entt o ver di cti n l es s t han for t y - ni ne day s, an d t her e i s no evi dence J acks on t r i ed t o cont actJ ohns dur i ng t hatt i m e. Va n e s s a W i l l i a ms , h o we v e r , t r i e d t o c o n t a c tJ a c k s o n a n d wa s u n a b l e t o l o c a t e h i m. W i l l i a ms
w as abl e t o obt ai n a cont actnum ber for J acks on fr om hers on’ s bai l bonds m an, s o s he ca l l ed and l efta mess age a tt he number
. W i l l i ams t es t i fi ed t hatJac k so n ca ll ed herback that eveni ng and w as ups ett hats he had c al l ed hi m at hi s gi r l fr i end’ s hous e. J acks on t ol d herhe

w o u ld c a ll h e r w h e n h e n e e d e d to ta lk to h e r. ¶20
. O n t he eve of t ri al , N ov em ber 7, 19 96 , Jackson cal l ed John s. Jackson cal l ed Joh ns, S r . a t9 : 0 0 p . m . a n d t o l d t h e m t o m e e t h i m a t M c D o n a l d ’ s b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l w a s t h e n e x td a y. T he Joh ns’ s ayt hat w as t he fir stt i m e t heykn ew t here w as a t ri al schedu l ed. Jackson , John s, Sr
. , and O l i verJ ohns m etatM cD onal d’ s atabout10: 00 p. m . A tt hi s m eet i ng, the ni ght bef or e tr i al , J ohn J acks on had no fi l e and no document s and met w i t h t he J ohns ’ forabout for t ym i nut es . B ot h t he J ohns ’ pr ovi ded sw o r n t es t i m onyt hatJ acks on neverdi s cus s ed

a n y t h i n g a b o u tOl i v e rt e s t i f y i n g i n h i s d e f

e n s e , e x c e p t t o s a y t h a t h e c o u l d t e s t i f y i n h i s o wn behal f i f he w ant ed t o t es t i fy
. H e never s how ed O l i ver J ohns any di s covery pr ovi ded byt he

s t at e, nor di d he show hi m any evi dence
. I n fac t , J ohns , Sr , s ai d t hat J acks on neverhad any p a p e rw o rk o r d o c u m e n ts e ith e r o f th e tim e s th e ym e t w ith h im
. ¶21. A gai n, at M cD onal d’ s , J acks on s ol i ci t ed even m or e m oney fr om t he J ohns ’ and w as pai d anot her$500. 00. J ohns , Sr
. t es t i fi ed t hat J acks on neverhad anypaperw or k, and t hat

w hen he pa i d J acks on $500 t hat ni ght , J acks on w r ot e hi m a r ece i pton a M cD onal d’ s napki n.

### 9

¶2 2
. M o s ti mpo r t a n t l y , a tt h e l a s t - mi n u t e me e t i n g b e f o r e t r i a l , t h e J o h n s ’ a s k e d what pr ogr es s J acks on had made i n s peaki ng w i t h t hei r al i bi w i t nes s es . O l i ver J ohns t es t i fi ed t hat J acks on a s s u r e d t h e m h e wou l d s p e a k t o t h e wi t n e s s e s t h a t n i g h t
. J o h n s , Sr
. r e c a l l e d t hat J acks on s ai d he had notgot t en ar ound t o t al ki ng t o anyof t he w i t nes s es , buthe w oul d s ee
w hat he cou l d d o b efore t ri al t he n ext da y . Jackson has a differ ent ve rs i on of these even t s. H e sa y s h e h a d a lre a d ytalk e d to th e w itn e ss e s tha t Jo h n s a sk e d h im to talk to , so talk in g to
a n y o n e o n th e n ig h t b e f o re tr ia l w o u ld h a v e b e e n d e f e a tin g h is p u rp o s e . ¶23
. Jackson cl ai m s that du ri ng his i nv est i gati on , he w ent t o the scene of t he cri m e and j ust

w a lk e d a ro u n d a sk in g p e o p le if th e y k n e w w h a t “ w e n t d o w n ” a n d w h a t th e yk n e w a b o u t it
. H e s t at ed t hathe di d notnece s s ar i l yknow t he names of t h e peopl e, he j us ts t ar t ed as ki ng. H e al s o cl ai m ed t o have a s ked s om e peopl e fr om out s i de t he ar ea w hom he t houghtm i ght have be en t her e orknow s om et hi ng about i t
. J ohns never cl ai m ed t o have be en att he s cene of t he cr i m e; he cl ai m s t o have be en athom e. I f J acks on h ad d o ne anyi ndepende nt in v e stig a tio n , the n c e rta in lyo n e p lac e to in v e stig a te w o u ld h a v e b e e n th e p lac e w h e re h is

c lie n t c la im e d to b e – h is n e ig h b o rh o o d
. ¶24. N ext , J acks on cl ai m s he t al ked t o t w o ot her peopl e, but he does n’ t know w ho t hey

w er e. H i s t es t i m ony w as t hat he re fus ed t o r el yon t hes e w i t nes s es beca us e he di d notbel i eve they w o u ld p rov ide truth fu l t esti m o n y . T h e thre e w itn esse s w h o test ifi ed at th e e v iden ti ary h e a rin g sa yJa c k so n n e v e r t a lk e d to th e m . T h e re f o re , n o o n e , inc lu d in g Ja c k so n , is c e rta in

o f th e id e n tity o f

th e s e tw o m y s te ry p e o p le to w h o m J a c k s o n a lle g e d ly sp o k e .

### 10

¶ 2 5
. Jo h n s c la im e d a ll a lo n g th a t h e w a s h o m e a lo n e w ith h is y o u n g d a u g h ter
. A t th is t i m e, J ohns ’ s daught erw as ar ound 1 y ear ol d. A ta mi ni m um , t he chi l d’ s m ot hers houl d have b e e n c o n tac ted . Ja c k so n d id n o t ev e n d o th a t. ¶26. T he m or ni ng of t r i al , t he J ohns ’ as ked w her e the w it n esse s w er e. J acks on cl ai m ed t hathe s poke t o one of the w i t nes s es , and t hey coul d not hel p. T he morni ng of t he t r i al w as th e f ir s t tim e th a t J o h n s k n e w th a t n o w itn e s s e s w e re g o in g to b e c a lle d o n h is b e h a lf
. ¶ 2 7
. B e f

o re th e ju ry w a s se lec ted , O liv e r Jo h n s w a s a d v is e d th a t th e p ro se c u tio n w o u ld

re c o m m e n d a se n ten c e o f f iv e to six y e a rs if h e p lea d g u ilty . Ja c k so n to ld h im th a t th e S tate had no evi dence agai ns t hi m and t hatt heyw oul d be abl e t o w i n t he ca s e. O l i verJ ohns r el i ed

o n th is a d v ic e a n d w e n t f o rw a rd w ith o u t a c c e p tin g th e p le a . ¶28. J acks on’ s per for m ance at t r i al w as l es s t han s t el l ar , s o m uch s o t hatJ ohns , Sr
. , l eft du ri ng his son’s tri al t o find another at t orney . A tano t her break, Jackson app roached John s, Sr
. and as ked hi m i f he had any m or e m oney ; J ohns , Sr
. w entt o the bank a nd got$500 for J acks on. A ft erhe r etur ned and pa i d J acks on, hi s s on w as fo u n d gui l t y . T he J ohns ’ t hen h ire d a n o th e r a tto rn e yf o r f u rth e r re p re se n tatio n . T h e g ra n d to ta l p a id to Ja c k so n f o r h is

as s i s t ance w as $3000. 00. DI S CU S S I ON ¶29. O n appea l , t he appr opr i at e s t andar d of r evi ew fordeni al of pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef a ft er
an evi dent i ar y hear i ng i s t he cl ear l yer r oneous s t andar d. R e y n o ld s v . S ta te , 521 So. 2d 914, 918 ( M i s s . 1988)
. A fi ndi ng of fa cti s “cl ear l yer r oneous ” w hen, al t hough t her e i s evi dence to su p p o rtit , the re v iew ing co u rt , o n the e n ti re e v iden ce , is l ef t w ith the d ef

init e a n d firm

### 11

c o n v ic tio n th a t a m is ta k e h a s b e e n m a d e . B r yan v. Hol

z er , 589 So. 2d 648, 659 ( M i s s . 1991) ( ci t i ng U H S- Q ual i c ar e, I nc . v . G ul

f Coas t Com m unit

y Hos pital , I nc . , 525 So. 2d 746, 754 ( M i s s . 1987) )
. “Thi s C our tm us texami ne t he ent i r e re cor d and acce pt t hat evi dence w hi ch

s u p p o rts o r re a so n a b lyten d s to su p p o rt th e f in d in g s o f

f a c t m a d e b e lo w , tog e th e r w ith a ll

r e a s o n a b l e i n f

e r e n c e s w h i c h m a y b e d r a w n t h e r e f r o m a n d w h i c h f

a v o rt h e l o w e rc o u r t 's f i n d i n g s o f

f a c t. Mu ll

ins v . R a tclif

f , 515 So. 2d 1183, 1189 ( M i s s . 1987) ( ci t i ng C otton v. Mc C o n n e ll , 435 So. 2d 683, 685 ( M i s s . 1983) )
. A nd, fi nal l y , t he t r i al j udge, s i t t i ng i n a benc h t ri al as t he tr i er of fact , has sol e authori t yfor determ i n in g c re d ib i l i t yof the w i t nesses. Mu ll ins v . R a tclif

f ; 515 So. 2d at1189 ( M i s s . 1987) ( ci t i ng H al l v. State ex r e l. W

a ller , 247 M i s s . 896, 903, 157 So. 2d 781, 784 ( 1963) )
. T hi s C our t m us t exami ne as s i gnm ent s of err or present ed in l i gh tof the aforem enti on ed p ri ncipl es. ¶30. A pr es um pt i on exi s ts tha tan at t or ney ’ s r epr es ent at i on w as compet ent , w i t h a s t r ong p re s u m p tio n th a t th e c o n d u c t f e ll w ith in th e w id e ra n g e o f p ro f e s s io n a l a s s is ta n c e . H

i terv. S ta te , 660 So. 2d 961 ( M i s s . 1995) ( ci t i ng Ca rn e y v . S ta te , 5 2 5 S o . 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 8 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 )). U n d er S tr ic k la n d

v . W a s h in g to n , 466 U
. S 668, 104 S. C t
. 2052, 80 L
. E d. 2d 674 ( 1984) , t he defe nd ant m ustfi rst s h ow t hat coun sel ’s perform ance w as defici ent, w hich r equ i res a
s how ing that co uns el m ade e r r or s s o s er i ous t hatcouns el w as notfunct i oni ng as t he “couns el ” guar ant eed t he defe ndant byt he Si xt h A m endment
. T he def i ci enci es of A t t or ney J o h n J a c k s o n m u s t b e m e a s u re d w ith in th e to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . H

i ter , 660 So. 2d,

a t 9 6 5
.J ack son testified when asked if he met w ith Johns when his fath er w asn’t w ith him that he 2 bel ie ves he “m ethim one time som ewhe re ...Ik now we m etat M cDona ld’ s a number of times. . . But we m et somewh ere else , I

just can’t re m em

ber where. ” 

### 12 ¶31. T o over come t he pr es um pt i on t hatcouns el i s compet ent , “[t ] he def endantm us t s how 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, b u t f o r c o u n se l’s u n p ro f

e ss io n a l e rro rs, th e re su lt of t he pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent
. ” Schm i tt v. State , 56 0 S o. 2d 14 8, 15 4 (M i ss. 1 9 9 0 ) ( quot i ng Str i c kl

and , 466 U S at694)
. Si m i l ar l y , acc or di ng t o Str i c kl and , t he def

endant

m us t sh o w the defi ci entper for m ance pr ej udi ced the def ens e. T hi s r equi r es s how i ng t hat

c o u n se l’s e rro rs w e re so se rio u s a s to d e p riv e th e d e f e n d a n t o f a f a ir trial, a trial w h o se re su lt is re liab le . Id

. at687. D ef i ci ent P erf

orm ance ¶ 3 2
. J o h n s a s s e rt s v a ri o u s e rr o rs th a t c a ll in to q u e s tio n th e c o m p e te n c e o f h is a tto rn e y. T h e b u rde n o f p rov ing o f th ese erro rs rests w ith Jo h n s. O li v er Jo h n s ass erted m an yerro rs in h is i n ef

fe cti v e a ssist an ce claim
. H o w e v e r, b ec au se th e law req u ir es th at w e m ea su re per for m ance w i t hi n a t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s , w e w i l l poi ntoutthe d ef ici enci es of J a c k s o n ’ s p e r f

o r m a n c e i n t h e i re n t i r e t y. ¶ 3 3
. A s th e f

a c ts h a v e sh o w n , J a c k so n d id n o t d o m u c h in th e v e ry sh o rt tim e h e h a d to prepare for t his t ri al
. T he record reveal s t hat he m etw i t h Joh ns fou r t i m es, and t w o o f t ho se
m eet i ngs l as t ed l es s t han for ty -five m inu t es . I ti s abundant l ycl eart o t hi s C our tt hatt he 2 pr i m ar ypurpos e of the m eet i ngs w i t h hi s cl i ent w as not t o conductanypr e- t r i al i nves t i gat i on or preparat i on , b u t to o b tai n cash f rom t he d efen dan tand his fam i l y . A l l bu ton e of these

m eet i ng s occurred atM cD on al d’s, a pu bli c res t aurant , w i tho utthe pr i vacyrequi red t o d i scussQu e s t i on i ng atth e evi de nt i ary he ar i ng r e gar di ng wh e the r J a c kso n p r e par e d J oh ns to te s t i f y: 3 Q.
. . . B ased on that, wou ldn’t y ou agree that it w ould be p rudent and effectiv e us e of y our tim e to alway s prep are y our client to testify
. . . . A. I f y ou’re m akingthe assum ption that Idid not te stify [sic] m y client, that might be so, but I alw ay s prep are m

y client to testify
. . . . A ft er s tati ngit might b e so th at

h e di d no t p re pare Johns to te st if y , h e st at ed

th at h e di d re ca ll s pe ci fi ca ll y preparin gO liv er Johns to testify , b ut he did not re m em ber when or where. A fter that, he stated the f ol l ow i ng: “O ne of

hi s par e nt s mi ghthave b e e n the r e , I j us tdo n’ tkno w. I j us tdo n’ tkno w. ButIal ways do that.” 

### 13 w i t h a cl i ent a cas e of t hi s m agni tude, l etal one t o m ai nt ai n t he i nt egr i t yof t he at t or ney - cl i ent p ri v ile g e . ¶34. T her e i s abs ol ut el yno document ar yevi dence that Jac k so n even unde r t ook t he

m i ni m al t as k of cr eat i ng and mai nt ai ni ng a fi l e on O l i verJ ohns
. H e adm i t s t hathe got di s coveryfr om t he s t at e, buthe neve r br ought i t t o M cD onal d’ s , nor di d he eve rbr i ng any
o th e r so rt o f p a p e r. Ja c k so n n e v e r sh o w e d h is c lien t an yd o c u m e n ts o r e v id e n c e re late d to hi s defe ns e. J acks on cannotaff i r m at i vel ys t at e t hathe s how ed J ohns anydocument s oreven t ook t i m e t o pr epar e hi m fort he t ri al. H ow ever , bot h J ohns and hi s fatherr emem bert hat 3 h e d i d n o t
. Th e o n l y d o c u me n t s J a c k s o n e v e r h a d we r e t h o s e o t h e rp e o p l e h a d g i v e n h i m, di s coveryfr om t he s t at e and a l i s t of w i t nes s es fr om J ohns
. J acks on even a dm i t t ed, and t he

r ecor d s uppor t s , t hathe di d notfi l e a s i ngl e pr e- t r i al pl eadi ng. ¶3 5
. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls rea so n ed that Jo h n Jac k so n ’s t esti m o n yat t h e ev iden ti ary hear i ng cont r adi ct ed manyof t he as s i gnm ent s of er r or t hat J ohns al l eged; par t i cul ar l yt hat J acks on onl ym etw i t h J ohns a fe w t i m es , t hatJ ohns neverhad t he oppor tuni t yt o r evi ew t he di s coverym at er i al s , t hat J acks on never di s cus s ed w i t h J ohns w het her J ohns w oul d t es t i fyat t r i al , t hat J ohns di d not know w hen t he t r i al w oul d be hel d unt i l t he eve ni ng of t he t r i al , and th a t J a c k s o n f

a ile d to d is c u s s tr ia l s tr a te g yw ith J o h n s . J o h n s v . S ta te , 2005 W L 89423, *6

### 14

(M i ss. A pp . 20 05 ). T he C ou rtof A pp eal s r ea so ned t hat J ackson “refut ed eac h o f t hese

a lle g a tio n s, a lth o u g h h e w a s u n a b le to re m e m b e r m a n yo f th e d e tails c o n c e rn in g h is

r epr es ent at i on o f J ohns
. T he ci r cui tcour tj udge’ s deci s i on t o hol d J ohns ’ s couns el t o be eff ect i ve w as bas ed l ar gel yon cr edi bi l i t y . ” I d. at*7. ¶ 3 6
. W e re c o g n ize th a t th e trial j u d g e , sittin g in a b e n c h trial a s th e trier o f f a c t, h a s s o le

a u th o ri ty f

o r d e te rm in in g c re d ib ility o f th e w itn e s s e s . Mul

lins , 5 1 5 S o . 2 d at 11 8 9
. Jac k so n ’s t es t i m onyw as notr el i abl e. T he onl yfac t of w hi ch Jac ks on w as cer t ai n w as t hat he di d not

r emem ber
. J acks on coul d pr ovi de t es t i m ony on hi s “s t andar d pr ocedur e” w hen pr epar i ng fo r t ri al, b u t cou ld h ard lyp rov ide a n ysp ec ifi cs a s to w h at he d id w h en p rep aring fo r Joh n s’s t r i al
. H e t es t i fi ed s t r i ct l yfr om hi s r ecol l ect i on, w i t houtt he ai d of anydocument s , and s t at ed

num er ous t i m es t hat he onl y vaguel y r emem ber ed t hi ngs or t hat he di d notr emem bert hi ngs at all
. A fin d ing o f f

ac t is “ clea rl y erro n eo u s” w h en , alt h o u g h there is ev iden ce to su p p o rt i t , t he r evi ew i ng cour t , on t he ent i r e evi dence , i s left w it h the defi ni t e and f i r m convi ct i on t h a t a m is ta k e h a s b e e n m a d e . B r yan , 5 8 9 So
. 2 d a t , 6 5 9 ( M i s s . , 1 9 9 1 ) ( ci t i ng U H S- Q ual i c ar e, I nc . v . G ul

f Coas t Com m unit

y Hos pital, Inc
. , 525 So. 2d 746, 754 ( M i s s . 1987) )
. W e have a defi ni t e and fi r m convi ct i on t hata mi s t ake ha s been made and f i nd t hat the tr i al cou rt j ud ge’s rel i ance on Jackson’s t est i m on yas cr edibl e i s cl earl yerr on eou s. ¶37. T he J ohns fami l yr em em b ere d things ve r yw el l
. A m ong t he l i s tof t hi ngs t hey

r emem ber ed w er e: eac h m eet i ng t heyhad w i t h J acks on, gi vi ng J ac k so n the l i s tof al i bi

w itn e ss e s, re p e a ted lya sk in g Jackson w hetherhe h ad sp o k e n to th e a lib i w itn e ss e s, sta tem e n ts J acks on m ade r egar di ng i nt er vi ew i ng t he w it n es s es , s t at ement s J acks on m ade r egar di ng

### 15

evi dence t hatt he St at e had, and w hen and ho w m u ch Jackson w as pai d. T he J ohns ’ had

m u c h in v e ste d in th is tria l. O li v e r J o h n s , J r. sto o d to lo se h is f re e d o m , an d h is p a re n ts inv ested ti m e, su p p o rt an d m o n ey into this tri al. In li g h t o f thes e fa ctors, i t i s clea r t h eyw ere
e x tre m e lyin v o lv e d in th e ir so n ’s d e f e n se a n d th a t th e ir re c o llec tio n o f e v e n ts w a s c e rta in ly sharper than Jackson ’s
. ¶38. J ohns ’ s pr i m ar yar gum entw as t hat J acks on fai l ed t o i nt er vi ew t he al i bi w i t nes s es th a t h e p ro v id e d Ja c k so n b e f o re trial, w h ich w a s, in e f f e c t, a c laim th a t Ja c k s o n f a il e d to per for m t he pr oper pr e- t r i al i nves t i gat i on. “[A ] t a m i ni m um , couns el has a dut y t o i nt er vi ew pot ent i al w i t nes s es and t o m ake i ndepende nti nves t i gat i on of t he fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s of t he ca s e. ” P a

y to n v . S ta te , 708 So. 2d 559 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng Fe r g u s o n v . S ta te , 507 So. 2d 9 4 , 9 6 , 1 9 8 7 ) (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l). T h e d e c isio n n o t to in ter v iew w itn e ss e s, p a rticu lar ly y ourow n, cannotbe cons i der ed an effe ct i ve st r at egi c choi ce. W hen couns el m akes choi ces of w hi ch w i t nes s es t o us e ornott o us e, t hos e choi ces m us tbe base d on couns el ’ s pr oper i nves t i gat i on. C oun s el ’ s m i ni m um dut yi s t o i nt er vi ew pot ent i al w i t nes s es and make an in d e p e n d e n t in v e s tig a tio n o f th e f a c ts a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e c a s e . State v. T

okm an , 564 S o .2 d 1 3 3 9 , 1 3 4 2 ; Fer

guson , 5 0 7 S o .2 d , 9 6
. ¶39. J acks on di d not m eet t he m i ni m um dut y r equi r ed of hi m . B ot h J ohns and hi s father

a g re e Ja c k so n w a s g iv e n th e n a m e s a n d a d d re ss e s o f th e a lib i w itn e ss e s a n d w a s a sk e d to cont a c tt h o s e wi t n e s s e s . I n f a c t , t h e yma d e s e v e r a l a t t e mpt s t o p r e s s h i m t o d o s o . J ohns t es t i fi ed J acks on t ol d hi m t he w i t nes s es w er e noti m por t ant , even though t heyr emem ber ed

s eei ng J ohns and hi s y oung daught erver y cl os e t o t he t i m e t he cr i m e w as comm i t t ed. T he

### The di s s e nt r e a s ons that

J ohns t a l ke d t o two of the thr e e a l ibi wi tne s s e s and 4 

### r e fus e d t o offe r

the m be c aus e he be l i e ve d the y woul d offe r

pe r jur e d t e s t i m ony . I n the di s s e nt , i t i s s a i d that

“ J a c ks on furthe r

t e s t i fi e d that

he i nt e rvi e we d the s e pe opl e [a l ibi wi tne s s e s ] pr i or

t o tr i a l
. ” J a c ks on neve r

s a i d that he r e m e m

be r e d i nt e rvi e wi ng e i the r of the a libi witnes se s. Ev en as Ja ckson sat in the e videntiary

hearing, li st ened to them testif y , an dlo o k edth em

inth e eye, Jack so nstill co u ldn o t testif y th at h e ev er sp o k e to e i the r of thos e wi tne s s e s . He di d s ay that Re gi na l d Nunne ry

l ooke d fam i l i ar

t o hi m , but wh en John s’ s c ounselpo inte d o ut that Nunn er y was ver y go odfrie nd s with Jac kson ’s b ro th er, Jack so nadm ittedth at th at m ay b e w hy N unn ery lo o k edf am iliar.
16 C our t of A ppeal s r eas oned t hat “J ohns ’ s at t or ney i ndi cat ed t hat he had a verygood r eas on fordecl i ni ng t o i nt ervi ew t hes e par t i cul ar w i t nes s es . . . . he bel i eved t he w i t nes s es t es t i m ony
w as per j ur ed t es t i m ony , bas ed on t he i nfor m at i on J ohns gave hi s at t or ney . ” Jo hns , 2 0 0 5 WL 89423 at5. T her e i s a ques t i on as t o how J acks on coul d have be l i eved the w i t nes s es t es t i m onyw as per

j ur ed w hen he nevert al ked t o t hem, and t he onl yi nfor m at i on J ohns gave him w as t he n am es and a dd res ses. ¶40. J acks on cl ai m s he t al ked t o t w o peopl e thatJ ohns br oughtt o hi m , buthe coul d not

r emem berw ho t heyw er e. N ei t her of t he Johns ’ ever s ay s t hatt heybr oughtanyw i t nes s es t o J acks on, onl y t hat t hey pr ovi ded hi m w i t h t he names and addr es s es . J acks on t es t i fi ed he b e l i e v e d th o s e tw o p e o p le w e re o f n o h e lp a n d w e re g o in g to p ro v id e p e rj u re d te s tim o n y. B a se d o n th a t, he d id n o t sp e a k to a n y m o re w itn e ss e s. T h o se tw o w itn e ss e s h a d a b so lu tely

no t hing t o d o w i t h the t hree al i bi w i t nesses. In fact , Jackson w as una ble t o ident i fyt ho se al l eged w i t nesses. 4 ¶41
. T his case cl osel yres em bles P a y to n v . S ta te , 708 So 2d 559 ( M i s s . 1998) I n P ayt on , a pr i vat e i nves t i gat orw as hi r ed t o i nves t i gat e t he bac kgr ound of a r ape vi ct i m , butt he

a tto rn e yh im s e lf

n e v e r t a lk e d to h e r ( th e v ic tim ). I d. A t562. H e w entt o t he s cene of t he

### 17

c ri m e , b u t d id n o t ta k e a n yp h o to s . Id . H e d id n o t d o a n yo th e r in v e stig a tio n b e c a u se h e d id

n o t f e e l it n e c e s s a ry a f

te r t h e in v e s tig a to rs h a d c o m p le te d th e ir jo b s . I d. P ay t on , i n h is

m ot i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef, as s er t ed t hatt he at t or neys houl d hav e tr i ed t o i nt er vi ew peopl e att he s cene and peopl e w ho w or ked w i t h t he vi ct i m at her w or kpl ace w ho al s o had i m por t ant inf

or m at i on. W e r ecogni zed ther e w as no at t empt t o t ake s t at ement s fr om t he hom eow ner s att he s cene of t he i nci dentorfr om t he vi ct i m ’ s r oom m at e. T hi s C our tr eas oned t hat“ s uch at t empt had been made, t hes e peopl e coul d have be en ca l l ed t o t es t i fy
. . . . E ven
a f ter tw o y e a rs o f

d e lay be tw e e n th e tim e o f a r re st a n d trial, P a y to n ’s a tto rn e yf a iled to conducta s ci nt i l l a of di s coveryot hert han go t o t he cr i m e s cene one t i m e and r eques tt he

s t at e t o tur n overi t ’ s di s covery . ” I d. ¶42. J acks on fai l ed t o conduct any di s covery ot her t han hi s al l eged vi s i tt o t he cr i m e s cene and hi s r eques tt hatt he s t at e tur n overdi s covery . A s s um i ng J acks on w entt o t he s cene , he

we n t o n a b l i n d mi s s i o n , l o o k i n g f o rp e o p l e wh o l o o k e d l i k e t h e ymi g h th a v e k n o wn
s om et hi ng ors ee n so m ethi ng. T her e w er e homeow ner s on t he s t r eetw her e t he s hoot i ng
occurr ed. A s a mat t erof fa ct , s om e evi dence w as found i n t hei r y ar ds
. J acks on di d noteven t al k t o t hem about w hat t hey s aw . J acks on knew t hat J ohns w as goi ng t o t es t i fy t hathe w as athom e w i t h hi s daught er . T hat w as J ohns ’ s s ol e defens e. H ow ever , J acks on neverdi d an i ndepende nti nves t i gat i on of anyar ea ori ndi vi dual s i n r el at i on t o t he al i bi d ef ense. T he deci s i on nott o us e t he al i bi w i t nes s es w as not bas ed on prope ri nves t i gat i on; i tw as notbas ed on anyi nves t i gat i on w hat s oeve r. J acks on’ s m i ni m um dut yw as t o i nt er vi ew pot ent i al

### 18

w i t nes s es and t o m ake a n i ndepende nti nves t i gat i on of t he fa ct s and ci rcu m s t ance s of t he

ca se. H e d id n eit h er. ¶43. “Ther e i s no ques t i on t hatt he def endanti s ent i t l ed t o a bas i c def ens e. ” H ill v . S ta te , 850 So. 2d 223, 266 ( M i s s . A pp. 2003) ( ci t i ng T rip lett v . S ta te , 6 6 6 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 )). A s t o w hata bas i c def

ens e mayent ai l , t he l anguage fr om t he T rip le tt C o u rt is in stru c tiv e : B asic d ef

en se in this case req u ir ed co m p let e in v e s ti g ati o n to as ce rt ain e v ery m a ter ial f

a c t ab o u t th is c a se , f

a v o ra b le a n d u n f

a v o ra b le. It re q u ire d f

a m ili a rity w i t h t he s cene , and t he s et t i ng. I tr equi r ed t hr ough hi s ow n r es our ces and p ro c e ss o f

th e c o u rt lea rn in g th e n a m e s o f , an d in te rv iew in g e v e ryp o ss ib le ey ew i t nes s , and get t i ng s t at ement s fr om eac h. I t r equi r ed pri or t o t r i al l earni ng al l i nfor m at i on hel d byt he s t at e ava i l abl e t o t he def ens e t hr ough pr e- t r i al d is c o v e ry m o tio n s . T rip lett , 666 So. 2d at 1361. T he fa ct s of t hi s cas e cl ear l ys how t hi s bas i c def ens e w as not p ro v id e d to J o h n s . ¶ 4 4 . A c c o rd in g to th e d iss e n t, w e h a v e f a iled to a d d re ss th e c ritica l p o in t th a t th e ju ryd id notconvi ctJ ohns of s hoot i ng i nt o a m ot or vehi cl e, and he w as acqui t t ed on t hatcount
. T he di s s ent s ugges t s t hat beca us e J acks on as s i s t ed J ohns i n an ac qui t t al , he coul d nothave be en in e f f e c tiv e . It c e rta in ly se e m s inc o n sis ten t th a t Jo h n s co u ld h a v e b e e n c o n v icte d f o r a ss a u lt and y etacqui t t ed on t he cha r ge of s hoot i ng i nt o t he vehi cl e. T hatw oul d s eem t o s ugges tt he vi ct i m w as i nj ur ed bys om e means ot her t han a s hot bei ng fi r ed i nt o t he vehi cl e. A tt he t r i al of t hi s m at t er , no one t es t i fi ed t hatO l i ver J ohns fi r ed any s hot s . T he t es t i m onyfr om eac h

w i t nes s w as t hatt heydi d not know nor coul d t hey det er m i ne w ho fi r ed t he s hot s . I n fac t , t he pol i ce c oul d noteven de t er m i n e that s hot s w er e fi r ed fr om J ohns vehi cl e atal l
. J acks on
co u ld li terall yh av e b ee n aslee p an d sti ll estab li sh ed this po int. A n eq u all yp laus ible theo ry

### 19

as t o w hy he w as convi ct ed i s t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor ta convi ct i on on ei t her of the t w o ch arges, and t he j ury com prom i sed and conv i ct ed hi m on on e of the charges. ¶ 4 5
. J o h n s h a s me t t h e f i r s t r e q u i r e m ent of Str i c kland , as h e h as sh o w n h is co u n sel’s per for m ance w as defi ci ent and t hat J acks on w as notfunct i oni ng as t he “c ouns el ” guar ant eed th e d e f e n d a n t b yth e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. P rejud i ce to t h e D efense ¶46. T o over come the pr es um pt i on t hat couns el i s compet ent , “[t ] he def endantm us t s how 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, b u t f o r c o u n se l’s u n p ro f

e ss io n a l e rro rs, th e re su lt

o f t he pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent
. ” S c h m itt , 5 6 0 So
. 2 d a t , 1 5 4 ( M i s s . 1990) ( quot i ng Str i cklan d , 46 6 U S a t 69 4)
. To s ho w r e a s on a bl e pr ob a bi l i t y , t he move r m ust

m er el ys how “a pr obabi l i t ys uffi ci entt o under m i ne conf i dence i n t he out come. ” D avis v. S ta te , 743 So. 2d 326, 334 ( M i s s . 1999) ( quot i ng Mo h r v . S ta te , 58 4 S o. 2d 42 6, 43 0 (M i ss. 1 9 9 1 )). If Ja c k so n h a d sim p lyb e e n p re p a re d f o r th e trial; if

h e h a d a sk e d f

o r m o re tim e to pr epar e i ns t ead of

goi ng for w ar d i n l es s t han t w o m ont hs ; if h e had ques t i oned t he al i bi

w itn esse s tha t he s h o u ld h av e q u esti o n ed ; i f h e h ad tal k ed to the m o ther o f Joh n s’s d au g h ter; i f he ha d t aken t i m e t o pr epar e h is c li en t t o t es t i fy ; i f he ha d done anythi ngt o hel p O l i ver J o h n s th e re is c e rta in lya re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t th e o u tco m e o f th e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

f e re n t. ¶47. H avi ng over come t he pr es u m p t i on of compet entcouns el , t he def endantm us tnow
s how t hatt he def

i ci entper for m ance pr ej udi ced the def ens e. T his req u ir es s how i ng t hat

### 20

c o u n se l’s e rro rs w e re so se rio u s a s to d e p riv e th e d e f e n d a n t o f a f a ir trial, a trial w h o se re su lt is re lia b le
. Str i c kl

and , 4 6 6 U S a t 6 8 7
. ¶48. Fai l i ng t o fi nd t hat J acks on’ s per for m ance w as defi ci ent , t he cour t of appea l s di d not add res s Str i c kl

and ’ s n ec essa ryelem en t th at t h e d ef en d an t sho w that Jac k so n ’s erro rs w ere
s o s e ri o u s a s to d e p ri v e h im o f a f a ir tr ia l. ¶49. T he t es t i m onyatt r i al s how ed that t he aggr avat ed as s aul tforw hi ch J ohns w as
co n v ict ed h ap p en ed so m e t im e be tw ee n 8 :00 an d 8 :30
. R eg inald N u n n ery , o n e o f Jo h n s’s

n e i g h b o r s , t e s t i f

i e d t h a th e s a w J o h n s wi t h h i s d a u g h t e r a n d i n v i t e d t h e m t o a c o o k o u t
. He

as ked J ohns t o go t o t he conveni ence s t or e and pur chas e s om et hi ng forhi m . J ohns w al ked t o t he conve ni ence s t or e and r etur ned fi ft een t o t w ent y m i nut es l at er . N unner yw as s ur e he

s aw J ohns aft er8: 00. R egi nal d N unner y ’ s w i fe , P atri cia, a l s o t es t i fi ed t hats he s aw J ohns bet w een 8: 15 and 8: 30 p. m . beca us e s he not ed t he t i m e on her w at ch. Pat r i ci a N unner ys aw J ohns aft erhe arr i ved bac k atherhous e fr om t he conve ni ence s t or e. K at i e M agee , anot her nei ghbor , s ai d s he s aw J ohns comi ng fr om t he di r ect i on of t he conveni ence s t or e s hor t l yaft er 8 :00 p . m . S h e re m em b ere d this be ca u se th eyw er e g e ttin g rea d yto ce lebra te a f ri en d ’s b i r t h d a y t h a t e v e n i n g . Kat i e M a g e e h a d a c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t l a s t e d a b o u tt hr ee or four

m in u tes w ith Jo h n s, a n d sh e d id n o t n o tice a n y th in g u n u su a l ab o u t h is d e m e a n o r o r h is b eh av ior. ¶50. T he t r i al cour tfound t he t es t i m onyof t hes e w i t nes s es s us pi ci ous bas ed on t he amount of t i m e i ts houl d have t aken the chi cken t o cook. Fur t her , t he t r i al cour tr eas oned t hat becau se t he al i bi w i t nes s es coul d notr emem bers peci fi c dat es and t i m es of eve nt s w hi ch

### 21

occurr ed af

t ert he ni ghtt heys aw J ohns , t heym us thave f aul t ym emori es . T he ques t i on i s not

w hethert heycou l d rem em ber w hen t hey si gn ed affidavi t s o r w hen t hey spok e t o att orney s, t he ques t i on i s w het hert heycoul d r emem berevent s t hatoccurr ed atoraboutt he t i m e of the shoo t i ng . E ach co uld r em em ber th e d a te a nd t he ti m es t heysaw John s. E ach o f t hese

w i t nes s es putO l i ver J ohns i n hi s nei ghbor hood w i t h hi s y oung daught erdur i ng t he t i m e t he

c ri m e w a s c o m m itte d
. ¶51. H ad t he w i t nes s es been as ked i n O ct ober of 1996 i f t heyr emem ber ed w hat happene d i n M ar ch of 1996, t hen cer t ai nl y t hei rr ecol l ect i on w oul d have be en fr es heratt hatt i m e. T he det er m i nat i on t o be m ade i s w het hert hes e w i tnes s es coul d have of fer ed r el i abl e t es t i m ony
a t th e tim e th e ys h o u ld h a v e b e e n a s k e d
. ¶52. T he t es t i m onyof t he al i bi w i t n esse s w as n o tr ebut t ed byt he pr os ecut i on. T he pr os ecut i on w as s ucce s s ful i n p rovi ng t hatt he mem or yof t he w i t nes s es w as faul t yw hen

re m e m b e rin g m o n th s a n d y e a rs th a t th e ysp o k e to a tto rn e y s re g a r d in g th is in c id e n t an d in

r emem ber i ng w h en t heys i gned af fi davi t s . H ow ever , atno t i m e di d t he cont entof t he aff i davi t s come i nt o ques t i on; atno t i m e di d t he ver aci t yof t he w i t nes s es come i nt o ques t i on; atno t i m e w as i tes t abl i s hed t hatanyof t hem had m ot i ve t o do anyt hi ng ot hert han s t at e t he tr u th . J o h n s ’s a lib i d e f e n s e ra is e s a n is s u e o f

f a c t to b e re s o lv e d b yth e ju ry. Hughes v. S ta te , 7 2 4 S o . 2 d 8 9 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). ¶53. T he di s s ent s pends an i nor di nat e amount of t i m e poi nt i ng out fl aw s i n t he t es t i m ony of t he al i bi w i t nes s es . T he probl em i s not w i t h w hatt he w i t nes s es s ai d ordi d nots ay . T he pr obl em i s t hatJ acks on nevert al ked t o t hem. J ohns w as ent i t l ed t o an al i bi defe ns e. T he

### 22

j ur ys houl d have be en gi ven an oppor tuni t yt o hear , as s ess, an d eval uat e t he t es t i m onyof t hes e al i bi w i t nes s es . T hatdi d not happen beca us e Johns ’ s at t or ney w as i neff ect i ve. A gai n, J o h n s ’ s a l i b i d e f

e n s e r a i s e s a n i s s u e o f

f a c tt o b e r e s o l v e d b y t h e j u r y. I d. ¶54. T he fa i l ur e t o inv esti g ate this c ase byJ acks on pr ej udi ced O l i verJ ohns
. T he t es t i m onyof t he al i bi w i t nes s es , coupl ed w i t h t he fac t t hat t her e w as abs ol ut el yno phy s i cal evi dence t o convi ctJ ohns , coul d ver yw el l have change d t he out come of t he t r i al
. J ohns has

su rpa ssed h is ob li g ati o n u n d er Str i c kl and t o prove that Jackson ’s perform ance, o r in th is

c a s e , J a c k s o n ’s n o n -p e rf o rm a n c e p re

ju d ic e d h is d e f

e n s e . C oncl usi on ¶55. W e fi n d t h e t r i a l c o u r tc l e a r l ye r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a tJ a c k s o n p r o v i d e d e f f e c t i ve assistan ce to O li v er Jo h n s. T h ere are am p le fa cts t o su p p o rto u r co n clus ion that co u n sel’s per for m ance w as defi ci entand t hatt her e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt he out come of t he t r i al

w oul d have be en di ffe r enti f s om e t ype of pr e- t r i al inves t i gat i on and pr epar at i on had bee n d o n e . See S tr i ckland v. W as hington , 4 6 6 U .S
. 6 6 8 . T h e re f o re , w e re v e rse th e ju d g m e n ts
o f th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls a n d th e P ik e C o u n tyC irc u it C o u rt, an d w e re m a n d f o r a n e w trial. ¶ 5 6
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R A N D C O B B , P . J J . , C A R L S O N A N D D IC K I N S O N , J J ., CONCUR. RANDOL P H, J . , DI S S EN TS W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. DI AZ AN D E AS L E Y, J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . RA ND OL P H, J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : I. Thi s W r i t of

C e r t i or ar i has be e n i m pr ov i de nt l y gr ant e d

### 23

¶57. T he deci s i on t o r evi ew vel non, a deci s i on of t he C our t of A ppeal s i s cont r ol l ed by M iss i ssi pp i R ule of A pp el l at e P rocedu re 17. M
. R
. A
. P
. 17 (a) un equ i vo cal l ydeclar es,

“ [ s]u c c e ss iv e re v iew o f a d e c isio n o f

th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt w ill

or di nar i l ybe gr ant ed onl yfort he purpos e of r eso l vi ng s ubs t ant i al ques t i ons of l aw for gener al s i gni fi canc e. ” R evi ew w i l l or di nar i l ybe l i m i t ed t o: 1) cas es i n w hi ch i tappea r s t hat t he C our t of A ppeal s has r ender ed a dec i s i on w hi ch i s i n confl i ct w i t h a pr i or deci s i on of t he C our tof A ppeal s orpubl i s hed Supr eme C our tdeci s i on; 2) cas es i n w hi ch i tappea r s t hatt he C ourt o f A p p ea ls ha s notcons i der ed a cont r ol l i ng cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on; 3) cas es w hi ch s houl d have be en dec i ded byt he Supr eme C our tbeca us e: i ) t he s t atut e ort hes e rul es r equi r e dec i s i on byt he Supr eme C our t , or i i ) t heyi nvol ve funda m en tal i s s ues of br oad publ i c i m por t ance r equi r i ng d e te rm in a tio n b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt
. M . R . A . P 17 ( a) ( 1) ( 2) ( 3) ¶58. A ccor di ngl y , t he C our t of A ppeal s deci s i on s houl d be fi nal and non- r evi ew abl e. T he

r ecor d befor e t hi s C our tcl ear l yr evea l s t hi s cas e fa i l s to m ee t any of t he af or ement i oned pr er equi s i t es , and t her efor e, t hi s pet i t i on fai l s t o s at i s fyt he s t andar d of r evi ew r equi r ed under M iss iss ip p i R u le o f

A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 1 7 (a ). Jo h n s w a s c h a rg e d w ith a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt ( C ountI ) and s hoot i ng i nt o a mot orvehi cl e ( C ountI I )
. T he j ur y w as unabl e t o r eac h a ver di ct on C ountI I of t he i ndi ct m ent , and convi ct ed Johns of C ount I onl y . T he ver di ctof t he Pi ke C ou ntyC i rcui t C ou rt w as unan i m ou sl yaffirm ed o n d i rectapp eal byt he C ou rtof A pp eal s. T he deni al by t he t r i al cour t of J ohns ’ m ot i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef w as al s o aff i r m ed by th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls w ith o u t d iss e n t.

### 24

¶59. T he m aj or i t y fai l s t o addr es s t hi s fat al fl aw . T he pet i t i oner never s ought t o es t abl i s h, and t he maj or i t yfai l s t o r evea l , good caus e t o s us pend the r equi r ement s orpr ocedur es of th e s e ru le s . See M
. R
. A
. P. 2( c)
. W e ar e bound t o fol l ow our rul es , not w i t hs t andi ng w e may di s agr ee w i t h a l ow ercour ti n t he re s ul t
. T hi s C our t s houl d fi nd t he W r i t of C er t i or ar i w as im p ro v id e n tl y g r a n ted , as th e re q u ire m e n t f o r a re v iew u n d e r M .R .A .P 1 7 (a )(1 ) is

n o n e x is te n t, a n d a lo n e s h o u ld b e d is p o s itiv e . I I . Johns’ cl ai m i s i l l usor y ¶ 6 0
. J o h n s a s s e r t s hi s cas e i s anal ogous t o P a y to n v . S ta te, 7 0 8 S o . 2 d 5 5 9 (19 9 8 ). Ho we v e r , t h i s c a s e i s c l e a r l yd i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m P a y to n . A s such, t he C ou rtof A pp eal s’ deci s i on i s noti n confl i ctw i t h P a y to n . Pay t on s at i s fi ed t he appe l l at e cour the w as pr ej udi ced due t o t he l ack of any p re -tria l in v e stig a tio n , b a se d o n u n c o n tro v e rte d tes tim o n yth a t no pr etr ia l in v e s tig a tio n w a s c o n d u c te d
. I d . at 561. I n t hi s cas e, t he t es t i m onyi s i n confl i ct
. J ohns

a l l e g e s p r i o rt o t r i a l h e p r e s e n t e d t o h i s a t t o r n e y , J a c k s o n , t h e n a me s o f t h r e e wi t n e s s e s . At the p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef h ea ri n g , Jac k so n test ifi ed that h e d eterm ined the w itne sses w ere
no tcredi ble and t hat i f he c al l ed the w i t nesses, t heirt est i m on ycou l d w el l be p erj urous. I I I . H i s t or y of

t he Pro c e e di ng ¶61. T h e v ict im o f an aggr avat ed as s aul t , K endal l J eff er s on, t es t i fi ed t hati n t he w eeks pr i ort o t he s hoot i ng, hi s l i fe ha d been thr eat ened byJ ohns
. J eff er s on fur t hert es t i fi ed af t er t hi s i nci den t, he and J ohns w er e i nvol ved i n a fi ght
. J ohns count er ed t hathe had be en t hr eat ened byJ eff

er s on.

### Th e s ho ts were fire d f rom an AK -47 ass ault

ri fle. 5 

### 25 ¶ 6 2
. A ccor di ng t o J e f f e r s o n , p r i o r t o t h e s h o o t i n g i n c i d e n t , h e wen t t o J o h n s ’ pl ace of

e m p lo y m e n t to sp e a k to Jo h n s to w o rk o u t th e ir d if f e re n c e s. Je f

f e rso n sta ted th a t Jo h n s to ld hi m , “[w ] e ai n’ tl eavi ng not hi ng al o n e and t el l y ourgr andma she ai n’ tgott o w or r yabout k e e p in g y o u o u t a f

te r yo u d e a d . J u s t te ll h e r yo u ’r e a lr e a d yd e a d .” ¶63. O n M ar ch 28t h, t he dat e of the s hoot i ng, J eff er s on and J ohns had enc ount er ed ea ch ot heron t w o s epar at e occas i ons , at l ocal conveni ence s t or es . O ne of thes e conve ni ence s t or es
w as B
. J
. ’ s , w her e J eff er s on t es t i fi ed he w as agai n t hr eat ened byJ ohns
. J ohns ’ al l eged

w i t nes s es t es t if

i ed att he PC R hear i ng t hatJ ohns w entt o B
. J
. ’ s on the eve ni ng of M ar ch 2 8 th
. ¶64. A ccompany i ng J eff er s on t o B
. J
. ’ s and w i t nes s i ng t he conve r s at i on bet w een J eff er s on
a n d J o h n s w a s R u s h a r d H a yn e s . H a yn e s ’ t e s t i m o n y c o n f o r m e d w i t h J e f

f e r s o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y. t hatatappr oxi m at el y 8: 00 p. m . , M ar ch 28t h, J ohns , i n hi s vehi cl e, fol l ow ed J eff er s on’ s car f ro m B .J .’s a n d th a t m u lti p le g u n sh o ts w e re f ire d f ro m Jo h n s’s v e h icle a t an d in to 5 Je f f e rso n ’s v e h icle . T h e v ictim , Je f f e rso n , an d th e e y e w itn e ss , H a yn e s, t est i fi ed co n c lu siv e ly t heyw er e ce r t ai n J ohns w as t he dri ver of t he fol l ow i ng vehi cl e. H ow ever , nei t herJ eff er s on
n o r H ay n es testi fied they co u ld be ce rt ain Jo h n s fired the sh o ts. A p asse n g er in Je ff erso n ’s vehi cl e w as w ounded, buthe di s appea r ed af t ert he i nci dent and w as neverfound. N o w eapon
w as found. T he t r i al cour t found t he s t at e put on a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e J ohns ’ vehi cl e w as t he source of the shots
.

### 26

¶65. A t t r i al , J ohns deni ed he fol l ow ed J eff er s on and fur t her deni ed any one fr om hi s car f ir e d a s h o t. J o h n s te s tif ie d h e w a s h o m e w ith h i s d a u g h te r a t th e tim e o f th e s h o o tin g . T hi s confl i ct i ng evi dence w as pr es ent ed t o a Pi ke C ount yC i r cui tC our tj ur y , w hi ch convi ct ed J ohns of aggr avat ed as s aul t , butdi d notconvi ctJ ohns of s hoot i ng i nt o a mot or vehi cl e. J ohns fai l s t o hi ghl i ght t hi s out come a nd t he di chot om y i t pr es ent s w hen cl ai m i ng t he i neff ect i venes s of hi s couns el , w ho evi dent l y s ucce eded i n convi nci ng a j ur yJ ohns w as
n o t r e s p o n s ib le f

o r f ir in g th e a c tu a l s h o ts
. ¶66. J ohns as s er t ed i n hi s PC R hi s convi ct i on w as t he r es ul t of i neff ect i ve assis t ance of

cou nsel att ri al
. T he b urden o f pr oo f r est s upo n Joh ns. T he acti on s of Joh ns’ at t orneym ust be m eas ur ed w i thi n t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ance s . See S tr ic k la n d v . W a s h in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S 6 6 8 , 1 0 4 S .C t. 2 0 5 2 , 8 0 L .E d .2 d 6 7 4 (1 9 8 4 ). ¶67. J ohns as s er t ed J acks on w as i neff ect i ve b ec au se h e fa il ed t o i nt er vi ew hi s al i bi

w itn e ss e s . Ja c k so n tes tifie d h e n e v e r re c e iv e d a n a c tu a l li st, b u t th a t Jo h n s f u rn ish e d h im names of put at i ve al i bi w i t nes s es . J acks on fur t her t es t i fi ed he i nt er vi ew ed t hes e peopl e pr i or to trial. A t th e P C R h e a rin g , ap p ro x im a tely se v e n y e a rs a f ter th e trial, h e w a s u n a b le to re c a ll th e ir n a m e s. W h e n Ja c k so n in ter v iew e d th e f irst w itn e ss , p rio r to trial, Ja c k so n sta ted th is

w itn e ss to ld h im , “ I ’ m g o n n a sa yw h a t y o u w a n t m e to sa y .” W h e n p re se n ted w ith i ncons i s t enci es and t he offe r t o m anufa ctur e t es t i m ony , J acks on w as fac ed w i t h t he dec i s i on
o f w h e th e r or n o t to u se th e se w itn e ss e s in Jo h n s’ tria l. Ja c k so n tes tifie d a f ter m e e tin g w ith t hes e peopl e, he det er m i ned t hei r t es t i m ony “w oul d have es s ent i al l y been use l es s . ” A r evi ew of t he or i gi nal t r i al r ecor d, the af fidavi t s of t hes e put at i ve w i t nes s es and t hei rconfl i ct i ng

### 27

t es t i m ony at t he PC R hear i ng, s at i s fi es t hi s J us t i ce t he dec i s i on of J acks on w as cl ear l ys ound tr ia l s tr a te g y . ¶68. J ohns ’ i n ef

fe cti ve as s i s t ance cl ai m i s t ot al l y r el i ant on J acks on’ s fai l ur e t o pr es ent
e v i d e n c e o f a n a l i b i t h r o u g h t h e s e p u t a t i v e wi t n e s s e s . At t r i a l , J o h n s t e s t i f i e d h e wa s a th o me
w ith h is da u g h ter at th e ti m e o f th e sh o o ti n g ; ho w ev er, his all eg ed ey ew itn esse s o ff er a differ ent and v ary i ng versi on of t he events of t hat even i ng . P ri or t o the P C R heari ng , John s’ al i bi w i tnes s es offe r ed af fi davi t s J ohns w as notathom e w i t h hi s daught eras he as s er t ed, but

r at herhe w as w al k ing ar ound t he nei ghbor hood. A tt he PC R hear i ng, t hes e put at i ve
w itn e s s e s te s tif

ie d to th e s a m e , w h ic h c o n f lic ts J o h n s ’ t e s tim o n y . ¶69. T he t es t i m ony of t he put at i ve w i t nes s es al s o confl i ct s w i t h t he t es t i m ony of J acks on. T hes e put at i ve w i t nes s es cl ai m ed t heyw er e n o tc o n t a ct ed byJ acks on. C ont r as t i ngl y , J acks on t es t i fi ed att he PC R hear i ng that thes e put at i ve w i t nes s es w er e goi ng t o offe rper j ur ed te s tim o n y , a n d th a t a s a n o f f ic e r o f th e c o u rt , h e d e te rm in e d th e ys h o u ld n o t c a lle d
. ¶70. T he maj or i ty o pi ni on t hatJ acks on w as d e f icie n t in n o t c a lli n g th e se w itn e ss e s re sts

u p o n a c o n f

lict in tes tim o n y . T h e c irc u it c o u rt ju d g e in th is m a tter is in th e b e st p o sitio n to

r es ol ve t hes e conf

l i ct s and i ti s ourdut yt o af fo r d hi m defe r ence . T hi s C our thas hel d, “a

c irc u it co u rt ju d g e sittin g w ith o u t a ju ryis a c c o rd e d th e sa m e d e f e r e n c e w ith re g a rd to h is fi ndi ngs as a cha ncel l or , and hi s fi ndi ngs ar e saf e o n appea l w her e t heyar e s uppor t ed by

s ubs t ant i al , cr edi bl e, and re as onabl e evi dence
. ” Ch a n te y Mu s ic P u b ., I

n c . v . Ma la c o , I

n c ., 915 So. 2d 1052, 1055 ( M i ss. 2005) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. A s s um i ng t he t rut hful nes s of J acks on’ s t es t i m ony , w hich t he t r i al cour tand C our tof A ppeal s di d, t he R ul es of

### 28

Pr ofes s i onal C o n d u ct re qui r e the ac t i on t aken byJ acks on. A l aw y erm ayr efus e t o offe r
e v id e n c e th a t th e la w y e r re a s o n a b ly b e lie v e s is f a ls e . See F a lse E v id e n c e C o m m e n t to M .R .P .C . 3 .3 (c ). ¶ 7 1
. E ven i f th i s Cou r t wer e t o i g n o r e t h i s p r o h i b i t e d c o n d u c t , a n d f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r t he Str i ckl and test , Jo h n s fa il s the sec o n d p ron g o f th e test. U n d er S tr ic k la n d , i n or dert o s how i neff ect i ve ass i s t ance of couns el , one mustal s o s how “t hat , butforcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal

er r or s , t he r es ul tof t he pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent
. ” S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S at694. ¶72. A ppl y i ng St

r i c kl and t o t he cas e befor e us , t he ques t i on becomes : w oul d t he r es ul tof Jo h n s’ tria l h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t if Ja c k so n p u t o n th e p u tativ e a lib i w itn e ss e s w ith th e ir

var y i ng t es t i m ony ? R evi ew i ng eac h put at ive ali b i w i t nes s ’ t es t i m onyatt he PC R hear i ng, t hen compar i ng t he t es t i m onyt o t hei raff i davi t s , and fi nal l y cons i der i ng t he contr as t i ng t r i al tes tim o n yo f

th e d e f e n d a n t, Jo h n s, lea d s m e to c o n c lu d e th e re su lt o f th is p ro c e e d in g w o u ld not have been di ffe r ent
. I n s uppor t of t hi s concl us i on, per t i nentpor t i ons of t he t es t i m onyand

a f f id a v it s ta te m e n ts o f

e a c h o f th e th re e a lle g e d w itn e s s e s is d is c u s s e d in f ra . A . R egi nal d N unn ery ¶73. R eg inald N u n n ery stat ed h e is a “f ri en d ” a n d “u sed to d o w o rk f o r” Jo h n s. N u n n ery di d nott el l any one he ha d i nfor m at i on r egar di ng J ohns ’ w her ea b o ut s unt i l aft erJ ohns had been char ged w i t h t he cr i m e. J ohns ’ m ot heral l egedl yi nfor m ed N unner ynotonl yt hathe w as
c h a rg e d w ith th e c rim e , b u t als o w h e n a n d w h e re th e c rim e o c c u rre d . U p o n lea rn in g th is i nfor m at i on, N unner y di d not offe r t o s har e t he “know l edge” w i t h t he pol i ce ordi s t r i ct

### 29

a t t o r n e yt h a th e h a d s e e n J o h n s a tt h e t i me t h e c r i me o c c u r r e d a ta p l a c e o t h e rt h a n t h e c r i me
s cene . ¶ 7 4
. In h is a f

f id a v it, a ttac h e d to th e P C R , N u n n e ryc laim e d h e s a w J o h n s in th e e a rly eveni ng hour s of M ar ch 28t h, w hen he t ol d J ohns he w oul d be cooki ng outand i nvi t ed J ohns t o di nner . N unner ycl ai m ed J ohns ar r i ved athi s hom e “a li tt le b i taft erei ght , about8: 12, 8:15. ” N unner yt hen s entJ ohns t o B J ’ s s t or e t o pur chas e bee r , and J ohns w as gone fi ft een t o t w ent ym i nut es . Por t i ons of t hi s t es t i m onycomportw i t h t hat of t he vi ct i m , J eff er s on, and the e y ew itn ess, H ay n es, w h o b o th t esti fied they saw Jo h n s at B
. J. ’s o n M arc h 2 8
. N u n n ery th

s t at ed att he PC R hear i ng he “a l w ay s s t ar t s hi s fi r e [for gr i l l i ng] at8: 00, ” w hi ch he r epea t ed

a s e c o n d tim e , “ a lw a y s a t 8 :0 0 .” E arl i er, N un neryst at ed thataround 8:15 p.m
. , he w as “busy

w i t h m yfi r e, g ett ing i ts t ar t ed form ygr i l l
. ” N unner ys w or e i n hi s aff i davi t , t hatt he food

w o u ld b e re a d ya t 9 :3 0 p .m . a t th e la te s t. B . P at ri ci a N unn ery ¶ 7 5
. Pat r i ci a N unner y , R onal d N unne r y ’ s wi f e , a s s e r t e d t h a tJ o h n s wal k e d i n t o her b a c k y a r d a t8 : 1 5 p . m. a n d t h a tt h e p u rp o s e o f J o h n s ’ s v i s i t wa s t o a s k h e rh u s b a n d t o d o s o me
w or k on J ohns ’ s w i fe’ s car . Pat r i ci a s t at ed t hatJ ohns ’ s vi s i tt ook pl ace bet w een 8: 15 and 8: 30 p. m . , “t he t i m e w hen w e j us t g ott hr ough, aboutt o gett hr ough w i t h t he food on the g ri ll.” S h e a ls o s ta te d J o h n s w e n t to B .J .’s , b u t h e “ w a s n ’t e v e n g o n e te n , f if te e n m in u te s .” ¶76. C ont r ar y t o her hus band , P at r i ci a s t at ed t w i ce dur i ng t es t i m ony s he w as cer t ai n t he food w as t hr o u gh cooki ng ar ound 8: 15 p. m . , beca us e s he sp e c ifi c a lly l ooked atherw at ch. Pa t r i c i a s h o u l d h a v e b e e n a war e h e rh u s band a lw ays st art ed h i s gri l l at8:00 p.m
. S he als o

### 30

s t at ed her hus band sl ow cooked t he food, w hi ch t akes “aboutan hour , hourand a ha l f, ” and t he food had been on t he gr i l l at l eas tan hourbefor e s he s poke w i t h J ohns , as t he food w as fi ni s hed cooki ng w hen J ohns came t o t hei rhous e. C . K at i e M agee ¶ 7 7
. K a tie M a g e e sta ted sh e a n d Jo h n s’ f a th e r w e re ra ise d to g e th e r a n d sh e h a s k n o w n h im al l herl i fe. I n heraff

i davi t , M agee s t at ed she gr ew up i n t he same nei ghbor hood as J ohns and th e yw e re f

rie n d ly . M a g e e s ta ted n o o n e c o n tac ted h e r d u rin g th e c o u rse o f Jo h n s’ tria l. M a g e e c laim e d th e f

irst tim e sh e w a s aw a re th a t sh e h a d in f o rm a tio n w h ich w a s h e lp f u l to J o h n s wa s wh e n s h e wa s d i s c u s s i n g J o h n s ’ c o n v i c t i o n wi t h h i s f a t h e r . M a g e e d i d n o tc o me f o rw a rd w ith th is s to ryu n til a f ter sh e w a s c o n tac ted b yJo h n s’ a p p e a l atto rn e y , b u t sh e c o u ld

n o tr e c a l l w h e n s h e m e tt h i s a t t o r n e y. ¶ 7 8
. A t th e P C R h e a rin g , M a g e e s ta te d sh e sa w Jo h n s w a lk b yh e r b a c k y a rd w ith h is daught er“a l i t t l e af

t erei ght ” and thats he t al ked t o h im fo r“3 or4 m i nut es , ” and s he w as “s ur e” a boutt hi s t i m e. H ow ever , i n her aff i davi t , M agee as s er t ed she fi r s t s aw J ohns “ar ound 8 :3 0 p .m .” a n d s p o k e w ith h im f o r “ s e v e ra l m in u te s .” C ont r ar y t o t he t es t i m o n y sh e h ad g iven m o m en ts be fo re, an d co n tr ary to her aff idav it , M ag ee then stat ed that w h en sh e h ea rd fr om J ohns ’ s fatheraboutt he t i m e t he cr i m e t ook pl ace , s he s aw J ohns hangi ng ar ound t he N u n n e ry’s “ a ll th a t e v e n in g a n d to w a rd th e n ig h t.” ¶79. T he maj or i t yopi ni on r el i es on M agee bei ng abl e t o r emem ber t he exa ctdat e and t i m e,
as s he w as celeb r at i ng t he bi r t hdayof a f r i end i n herbacky ar d. T he cr i m e t ook pl ace on M ar ch 28t h. A tt he PC R hear i ng, M agee s t at ed herfr i end’s bi r t hdayw as on M ar ch 27t h.

### 31

R eal i zi ng t he contr adi ct i on fr om her ow n t es t i m onym om ent s befor e, s he t hen r eca nt ed and

s ai d t her e w as no bi r t hdaypar t y . She t hen s t at ed s he r emem ber ed, fr om appr oxi m at el ys even y ear s befor e, t haton t he 28t h of M ar ch, s he j us thad peopl e overt o “hang out
. ” M agee admi t t ed s he had be en dr i nki ng t he dayof M ar ch 28t h. ¶80
. T he w i t nesses pres ented i nco nsi st ent s t at em ents regar ding t he t i m e t heysaw John s. E ach w i t nes s ’ s t es t i m onyatt he evi dent i ar yhear i ng confl i ct s n o t onl yw i t h t hei rper s onal

a f f i d a v i t s , b u t w i t h t h e t e s t i m o n y o f e a c h o t h e ra n d m o s ti m p o r t a n t l y, w i t h J o h n s ’ s t e s t i m o n y. E ach w i t nes s s t at ed J ohns w as att hei rhom e the ni g h t o f M arc h 28t h, att he t i m e of the

s hoot i ng. J ohns t ol d t he j ur yhe w as hom e w i t h hi s daught ert he ent i r e eve ni ng. ¶81. A ccor di ng t o S tr ic k la n d , “a c onvi ct ed de f

e n d a n t
. . . m us ti dent i fyt he ac t s or om i s s i ons
o f c o u n s e l th a t a re a lle g e d n o t to h a v e b e e n th e re s u lt o f re a s o n a b le p ro f

e s s io n a l ju d g m e n t.” Id . at690. J acks on m ade the pr ofes s i onal det er m i nat i on t hes e w i t nes s es w oul d notbe

cr edi bl e; t her efor e, J acks on di d notcal l t hem as a l i bi w itnes s es . J ohns s t at es t hatunder S tr i c k la n d

, couns el has a dut yt o m ake r eas onabl e i nves t i gat i on. J acks on t es t i fi ed att he evi dent i ar yhear i ng he made t he det er m i nat i on pr i ort o t r i al t hes e w i t n es s es m ayoffe r p erjured test im o n y . U n d er S tr ic k la n d , couns el has t he r i ghtt o m ake de ci s i ons r egar di ng t r i al

s tr a te g y . I

d . at688- 89. J acks on’ s choi ce not t o cal l w i t nes s es l acki ng cr edi bi l i t yand off er i ng t e s t t i m o n y i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a c c u s e d ’ s t e s t i m o n y c a n c l e a r l y b e c o n s i d e r e d t r i a l s t r a t e g y. A s s u m i n g a rg u e n d o J a c k s o n c a lle d th e w itn e s s e s w ith th e ir in c o n s is te n t te s tim o n y, due t o th e o ver w hel m i ng w ei ghtof ot herevi dence pr es ent ed aga i ns tJ ohns , a r eas onabl e j ur or

### 32

cou l d h ave reached a gu i l t yverdi ct
. T here has been no show i ng t he ou t com e of Jo hn s’ s case
w oul d have be en di ffe r enthad t hes e w i t nes s es t es t i fi ed. ¶82. T hi s cas e w as deci ded by a j ur y , and t hi s C our t gi v es jury v erd i ct s gr eatdefe r ence . V e n to n v . B e c k m a n , 845 So. 2d 676, 686 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng D u c k e rv . Mo o r e, 680 So. 2d 808 , 8 1 1 (M iss
. 1996) )
. T hi s cas e w as s ubs equent l yaff i r m ed bya unani m ous C our tof A p p e a ls. Jo h n s’s m o tio n f o r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief w a s d e n ied b y th e trial c o u rt a f ter a f u ll h e a rin g . T h is d e c isio n w a s a f f irm e d b y th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls w ith o u t d iss e n t. Itis th e d u ty of t hi s C our tt o gi ve defe r ence t o t hes e dec i s i ons and t hi s convi ct i on s houl d notbe di s turbed. ¶83. J ohns has cl ear l y not pr oved an i neff ect ive a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel clai m under Str i c kl and
. J acks on t es t i fi ed i n an evi dent i ar yhear i ng t hati n hi s pr ofes s i onal j udgm ent , he b e liev e d Jo h n s’s a lib i w itn e ss e s w e re g o in g to o f f e r fa lse sta tem e n ts. Ja c k so n to o k in to
acc o un tt he surr ou nd i ng ci rcum st ances an d m ade a tact i cal decis i on no tt o call t hese

w i t nesses. ¶84. J ohns fur t her fai l ed t o pr ove Jac ks on’ s defe ns e pre j udi ced t he outco m e o f hi s cas e. T h e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f e v id e n c e p re se n ted a g a in st J o h n s w o u ld a llo w a ju ryto

r eas onabl yconcl ude t hatJ ohns w as gui l t y of t he cr i m e comm i t t ed. E ven i f t hes e al l eged a l i bi

w itn e s s e s h a d te s tif

ie d , a d if f e re n t r e s u lt w o u ld n o t h a v e o c c u rr e d
. ¶ 8 5
. F o r th e se re a so n s, I re sp e c tf u llyd iss e n t.