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 7 - KA- 0 0 0 7 2 - S CT CHRI S TOP HER ARCHER
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 01/ 2004 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . JA N N IE M . L E W IS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HOLM ES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : KE L S E Y L E VOI L RU S HI NG AT T OR NE Y 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 : LAU RA HO GA N TED DER D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y : JA M E S H . P O W E L L , III 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 - 07/ 24/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E D I A Z, P . J. , E A SL E Y A N D L A M A R , JJ. EAS LEY, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. C hri st opher A r cher w as i ndi ct ed by the gr and j ury of H ol m es C ounty i n D ece m ber 2002 f orunl aw f

ul l y, w i l f

ul l y, and f

el oni ous l y r obbi ng J ohn W i ns t on, J r . of hi s per s onal pr operty agai ns thi s w i l l , and pl aci ng h i m in f earof i m m edi at e i nj ury t o hi s per s on by exhi bi t i on of

a dea dl y w eapon i n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 97- 3- 79 ( R ev . 2 00 6) . A r c he r ’ s f i r s ttr i a l , i n O c t ob e r2 00 3, e nd e d i n a mi s tr i a l a f t e rthe j ur y w as unabl e t o r eac h an unani m ous ver di ct . A r cherw as r etr i ed the fol l ow i ng February w i th a
n e w ly e m p a n e led ju ry , a n d fo u n d g u ilty o f ar m e d ro b b e ry . O n M a rc h 1 , 2 0 0 4 , the H o n o ra b leT h e re co rd in d icates tha t A rch er’s co u n sel for this ap p ea l w as intr o d u ce d to the jury 1 b y A rc h e r’s lea d c o u n se l d u rin g v o ir d ire a n d a ss iste d d u rin g trial. 

### 2 J anni e Lew i s s ent ence d A r chert o t en yea r s , w i th tw o year s s us pended, i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons . C ouns el f orA r cherf

i l ed a not i ce of

appea r ance , al ong w i t h a mot i on f

ora new tr i al and a r eques tf ora cont i nuance thats ame day. J udge 1 L ew i s gr ant ed the cont i nuance , hel d a hea ri ng o n M ay 19, 2005, and ther eupon deni ed A rc h e r’s m o tio n fo r a n e w trial. ¶ 2 . Ba s e d o n th e u n a v a i l a b i l i ty o f th e tr i a l tr a n s c r i p t , J u d g e Le wi s g r a n t e d Ar c h e rtwo ext ens i ons of

t i m e t o f i l e an appea l . N ot i ce of appeal havi ng now been f i l ed, A r chers eeks
r evi ew of

hi s convi ct i on. FACTS ¶ 3 . O n Ju ly 2 1 , 2 0 0 2 , W in sto n e n ter e d th e A u to Z o n e sto re in L e x in g to n , M iss iss ip p i, t o p u r c h a s e s o me mo t o ro i l . Atth e o i l a i s l e , W i n s t o n r a n i n t o a n a c q u a i n t a n c e . T h e two excha nged gr eet i ngs and s oon began di s cus s i ng engi ne heads f oran ’ 89 M us t ang. D ur i ng thei rconver s at i on, anot heri ndi vi dual w hom W i ns t on had nevers een be f or e i nt er j ect ed and
s ai d he knew w her e s om e heads w er e l ocat ed nearby, and coul d t ake W i ns t on ther e. W i ns t on an d the in d ividu al, w h o m h e later i d en ti fi ed as A rch er, l eft th e sto re a n d g o t i n to W inston ’s vehi cl e. ¶4. W i ns t on t es t i f

i ed that as he turned hi s head t o back out of his parki ng s pot , A r cher
r eac hed o ver a nd s tuck a “ pi s t ol ” i nt o W i ns t on’ s s i de and s ai d, “G i ve me yourm *** f ***
m oney. ” “Sca r ed, ” W i ns t on r eac hed i nto hi s pocketand hande d A r cher$60. A r cherthen

### 3

s ai d, “ Snap thatc hai n of f yourne ck. ” W i ns t on ya nked a gol d he rr i ngbone neckl ace fr om aro u n d h is ne ck an d h an d e d it to A rch er. A rch er instruc ted W inston to leav e the store’s p a rk in g lo t an d to d riv e to w a rd s S a in ts A c a d e m y . W h e n the y rea c h e d the sc h o o l, A rc h e r to ld W i ns t on t o m ake a U - turn ont o B al ance D ue R oad. O nce on Bal ance D ue, the tw o r ode thr oughoutthe ar ea, turni ng ont o var i ous r oads and l anes , bef or e eve ntual l y arr i vi ng back ont o the mai n r oa d. A ga i n on Bal a nc e Due, the y a pp r oa c he d a b r i dg e wher e A r cher in stru c ted W in sto n to sto p h is c a r. W in sto n c o m p lied . A t th a t p o in t, A rc h e r lo o k e d d ire c tly
overatW i ns t on and s ai d, “I oughtt o ki l l yourm *** f *** a**. ” A r cherthen s t epped outof th e v e h icle , told W in sto n to “ g e t th e f* * * o u t o f h e re ,” a n d lef t o n fo o t. ¶5. W i ns t on i m m edi at el y dr ove back t o the A ut o Z one and t ol d the s t or e’ s m anage rthat he had j us tbeen r obbed. A s t or e empl oyee c ont act ed a pol i ce of f i cerw ho happene d t o be
s t andi ng acr os s the str eetatt he Juni orF ood M art . O f f i cerK enny W i l s on, w ho w as hel pi ng a stra n d e d m o to rist a t th e tim e , told W in sto n to g o to th e p o lice sta tio n a n d w a it fo r h im ther e. O f

f i cerW i l s on arr i ved s hor t l y ther eaf t er , and the tw o dr ove bac k t o the A ut o Z one. T he of f i cerconduct ed an i nves t i gat i on, dur i ng w hi ch t i m e someone ( the r ecor d does nots ay w ho) s ai d thatA r cherw as the per s on w ho had l ef tw i t h W i nst on . O f

f i cerW i l s on, w ho t es t i f i ed thathe knew A r cher , dr ove W i ns t on back o ut t o the B al ance D ue ar ea t o l ook f or A rc h e r, b u t to n o a v a il. ¶6. O n J ul y 27, W i ns t on s w or e out an af f i davi t conce rni ng the even t s on J ul y 21. T he
n ex t m o rnin g , O ffi ce r W il so n ca ll ed D ep u ty S am C h am b ers at th e H o lm es C o u n ty S h eriff’s D e p a rtm e n t, an d a sk e d th e d e p u ty if h e h a d a p ictu re o f A rc h e r th a t co u ld b e u se d in a p h o to

### 4

l i neup. T he deputy f

ound one i n hi s comput er , and pr i nt ed i tal ong w i th tw o other ind ividu als’ ph o tog rap h s. T h e li n eu p w as c o n d u cted lat er tha t aft ern o o n in the d ep u ty’s of f i ce. I n the pr es ence of O f f i cerW i l son and D eputy C hamber s , W i ns t on vi ew ed ea ch p h o to g ra p h . H e p ic k e d A rc h e r’s p ictu re o u t o f th e th re e a n d sta ted to th e o ffic e rs th a t th is
w as th e p erso n w h o h ad rob b ed h im o n Ju ly 2 1 . A w arran t w as th en issue d for A rch er’s
a rre st. ¶7 . T hr ee w eeks l a t e r , o n A ug us t1 8, Ar c he rwas s t op pe d by the Goodma n pol i ce on H i ghw ay 15 and de t ai ned ther e f oran unr el at ed i nci dent . O f f i cerW i l s on, havi ng i nf

or m ed th e G o o d m a n p o lice to b e o n the loo k o u t fo r A rc h e r, w a s c a lled to th e sc e n e . U p o n a rriv a l, O f f i cerW i l s on a s ked A r cheri f he ha d a w eapon i ns i de hi s ve hi cl e; A r chers ai d thathe di d. T he of f i cerr etr i eved a . 380 cal i berhandgun f r om A r cher ’ s car , and t ook A r cheri nt o cus t ody. DI S CU S S I ON ¶8. A r cher pr es ent s tw o cl ai m s on appeal . Fi r s t , A rcher charges t hat he w as pr ovi ded i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el due t o the f

ol l ow i ng om i s s i ons by hi s counse l attr i al : ( 1) fa ilu re to s e e k su p p re ss io n o f th e g u n fo u n d in A rc h e r’s p o ss e ss io n a t th e tim e o f h is a rre st; (2) fail u re to u se a p ere m p tory c h all en g e o n juro r n u m b er 2 1 , w h o d iscl o sed d u ri n g v o ird ir e thats he per s onal l y knew the vi ct i m , and had, her s el f , been t he vi ct i m of a r obbery; and ( 3) f ai l ur e t o r eques ta mot i on f ordi s m i s s al atthe cl os e of the s t at e’ s cas e and agai n atthe end
o f th e d e fe n se ’s c a se . A rc h e r a rg u e s th a t th e se o m iss io n s c o n stitu ted a se rie s o f e rro rs b y h is tr i al couns el w hi ch s ever el y pr ej udi ced hi s def ens e and de pr i ved hi m of hi s cons t i tut i onal rig h t to e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l.A ppel l at e couns el f orA r chers t at ed i n hi s br i ef thatj ur ornum ber11 had al s o been 2 vi ct i m t o a robbe ry, butt he r ecor d re veal s t hi s t o be i nacc ur at e. D ur i ng t he cha l l enge s t age of j ury s el ect i on, A r cher ’ s tr i al couns el m oved t o s tr i ke j ur ornum ber11 f orcaus e on the bas i s thats he knew the vict i m and had, her s el f , been a r obbery vi ct i m . H ow ever , j ur or num ber11 di d notr es pond w hen the cour tasked the j ur or s i f anyone ha d everbeen the “ v ic tim o f a v io le n t c ri m e , a rm e d ro b b e ry , o r m u g g in g .” 

### 5 ¶9. S econ dly, A rcher argues that the tri al cou rt err ed by den ying his chall eng e forcause as t o j ur ornum ber11, due t o herdi s cl os ur e thats he cas ual l y kne w the vi ct i m i n thi s cas e. 2 I n addi t i on, A r cherar gues that , des pi t e hi s couns el ’ s f ai l ur e t o chal l enge j ur ornum ber21, the tr i al cou rtnev ertheles s erred by n ot s ua spo nte excusi ng j uror 21 fr om the v enir e. T hu s, b y h a v in g b o th ju ro rs 1 1 a n d 2 1 e m p a n e led o n h is ju ry , A rc h e r c laim s h e w a s d e n ied h is
cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a tr i al by a f ai rand i m part i al j ury. I . I NEFF ECTI VE ASS I S TANCE O F COUN S EL. ¶ 1 0 . T h e a p p e llan t’s in e ffe c tiv e -a ss ista n c e -o f-c o u n se l c laim w ill n o t b e a d d re ss e d o n th is di r ectappea l . A s the record i ndi cat es , appel l ant ’ s couns el on appea l al s o as s i s t ed the
a p p e llan t’s le a d c o u n se l at tria l. ¶11. T hi s C ou rtw as pr es ent ed a s i m i l arcl ai m i n Min n ick v. Sta te , 5 51 S o. 2 d 77 (M i ss. 1 9 9 8 ) ( over r ul ed on othergr ounds ) , w her e the def endant ’ s couns el on ap peal al s o had
r epr es ent ed the def

endantattr i al and w as cl ai m i ng i n t he def endant ’ s appea l thathe pr ovi ded i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el dur i ng tr i al . T he Minni ckC our tcur s or i l y acknow l edged the unus ual nes s of

an att orney cl ai m i ng hi s ow n i nef f ect i venes s , butneverthel es s addr es s ed the mer i t s of

the cl ai m and appl i ed the tw o- pr onged t es ts etf or th i n Str i ckland v. W as hington , 4 6 6 U . S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 -65 , 8 0 L . E d . 2d 67 4 , 6 9 3 -95 (19 8 4 ),

### 6

r equi r i ng the def

endantt o s how : ( 1) thathi s c ouns el ’ s pe r f or m ance w as de f

i ci ent , and ( 2) th a t th e d e fi c ie n c y p re

ju d ic e d h is d e fe n s e . I

d. a t 9 8 -9 9 . Minni ckh eld th at th e d efe n d an t’ s appel l at e couns el f

ai l ed t o dem ons tr at e t hathi s re pr es ent at i on att r i al w as ei therdef i ci entor th a t h is p e rf

o rm a n c e h a d p re

ju d ic e d h is c lie n t w ith a n u n fa irtr ia l. I d. at99. ¶ 1 2 . Re s e a r c h f

a i l e d t o l o c a t e a n o th e r c a s e i n wh i c h th i s Co u r t wa s p e t i t i o n e d t o r e v i e w a s el f
- i nef f ect i venes s cl ai m . H ow ever , t he C our tof A ppeal s has bee n pre s ent ed w i th s uch a
c la im o n a t le a s t tw o o c c a s io n s . See L y le v . S ta te , 9 08 So . 2 d 18 9, 1 97 ( M i s s . Ct . A pp. 2005) ; and H

ill v. S ta te , 7 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 9 -50 (M iss. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). ¶13. I n H

ill , t he C ou rt of A ppeal s r eadi l y cal l ed att ent i on t o the i nappr opr i at enes s of an a t t o rn e y wh o r e p r e s e n t s a c r i mi n a l d e f e n d a n ta ttr i a l r a i s i n g o n a p p e a l th e c l a i m o f h i s o wn i nef f ect i ve t ri al as s i s t ance , and l ai d outf ourpr of es s i onal
- conductvi ol at i ons ar i s i ng f r om s u c h re p re s e n ta tio n . See H ill , a t1149- 50. T he courtnot ed thatr ai s i ng thi s ki nd of err oron a p p e a l “le a v e s q u e s tio n s a s to w h e th e r it is a g o o d fa ith a rg u m e n t, or ra th e r a n a c tio n to ci rcumventthe j udi ci al pr oces s . ” Id . at1150. H ow ever , bas ed on Minni ck , the C our tof A ppeal s add res s ed the mer i t s of the cl ai m , appl i ed the Str ickland testan d ruled H il l’ s in e ff e c tiv e n e s s c la im to b e w ith o u t m e ri t. I d. a t 1 1 5 0 -5 1 . ¶14. Faced w i th anothers el f
- i nef f ect i venes s cl ai m i n Ly le , the C our tof A ppeal s , ci t i ng Minni ck, ag ai n addr es s ed the mer i t s of appel l at e couns el ’ s ar gum entthathe had pr ovi ded h is c lie n t i n e ff

e c tiv e le g a l a s s is ta n c e d u ri n g tr ia l. L y le , 908 So. 2d at197- 98. A f t erappl yi ng the Str i c kl

and t es t , the cour thel d t he ar gum entt o be w i thoutm er i t , butnotw i thoutnot i ng, o n c e a g a in , th e p ro b le m a tic n a tu re s u c h a c la im p re s e n ts . I d. at197- 98. W e agr ee.A t th e tim e o f th e a p p e llan t’s tria l in 2 0 0 2 , fo rm e r R u le 2 2 w a s in e ffe c t an d is 3 ther ef or e contr ol l i ng. T he f

or m errul e di d notcont ai n t he l anguage , “i f s uch i s s ues ar e bas ed on f act s f ul l y appar entf

r om the r ecor d. ” 

### 7 ¶15. O r di nar i l y, i nef

f ect i ve- as s i s t ance - of

- couns el c l ai m s a r e m or e appr opr i at el y br ought d u rin g p o st-c o n v ictio n p ro c e e d in g s. T h is is b e c a u se d u rin g d ir e c t ap p e a ls th e C o u rt is l i m i t ed t o t he t r i al cour tre cor d i n i t s r evi ew of the cl ai m , and ther e may be i ns t ance s i n w hi ch in s u ff ic ie n t e v id e n c e e x is ts w ith in th e 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 ilcherv. S ta te , 863 So. 2d 776, 825 ( M i s s . 2003) . I n s uch a cas e, the appr opr i at e pr ocedur e i s t o deny
re lief, 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 ead v . S ta te , 4 3 0 S o . 2 d 8 3 2 , 8 3 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). ¶16. H ow ever , thi s Courtmay addr es s a n i nef f ect i venes s cl ai m on dir ect app eal i f the p re se n ted iss u e s a re 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 . M .R .A .P . 2 2 ; see al so H a v a rdv. S ta te , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 7 7 1 , 7 8 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). M issi ssipp i R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 22 w as a m ended i n 2005 t o c l ar i f y thatboth a ppel l at e court s ha ve the author i ty to address and rul e on t he m er i t s fort hes e t ypes of i s s ues duri ng di r ectappeal s w hen pr oper , and now reads as f

oll ow s: ( b) P os t - convi ct i on i s s ues rai sed on di rec t appeal . I s s ues w hi ch may be ra ise d in p o st-c o n v ictio n p ro c e e d in g s m a y a ls o b e ra ise d o n d ire c t ap p e a l if s uch is s ues ar e bas ed on f act s ful l y appar ent

f r om the r ecord. W her e the a p p e llan t is rep re se n ted b y co u n se l w h o d id n o t re p re se n t th e a p p e llan t at tria l, the f ai l ur e t o r ai s e s uch i s s ues on di r ectappea l s hal l cons t i tut e a w ai verbarr i ng con si derat i on of the is sues i n p ost -convict i on proceed i ng s. M . R . A . P. 22( b) ( 2005) ( emphasi s added) . Forthis case, the s econd s ent ence of the rul e, 3
w h ich d id n o t ch a n g e , is o f p rim a ry re lev a n c e to th e m a tter h e re in b e fo re th e C o u rt.

### 8

¶ 1 7 . Th e s e n t e n c e i n t e n t i o n a l l y s e r v e s a d u a l p u rp o s e . Und e r j u d i c i a l
- e c o n o my cons i der at i ons , the C our tpr es um es thatnew eyes on appea l , havi ng thor oughl y r evi ew ed the tr i a l c ou r tpr oc e e di ng s , w i l l kn ow w he the rorno tc e r t a i n c l a i ms, s uc h a s tho s e c ha r gi ng i nef f ect i ve tr i al as s i s t ance, a r e mer i t or i ous . T hus , i f an i s s ue orcl ai m i s r i pe and ba s ed on
m a tters fu lly e n v e lo p e d w ith in th e rec o rd , it sh o u ld b e b ro u g h t du rin g d ire c t ap p e a l to a v o id the r i s k of

bei ng deemed w ai ved. ¶18. T he C our ti s aw are, h ow ever, thatin m any i ns t ance s a cr i m i nal def endant ’ s tr i al
c o u n se l m a y c o n tin u e to re p re se n t th e d e fe n d a n t in h is o r h e r a p p e a l. S u c h is p e rfe c tly
acc ept abl e, and i n m any s i tuat i ons m ay be the bett ercour s e. B uti n order t o s af eguar d the def endant ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , the pr ocedur al barthatotherw i s e w ou l d appl y t o an i nef f ect i ve- tr i al
- as s i s t ance i s s ue w hen new c ouns el i s handl i ng the def endant ’ s appea l does notappl y w hen appe l l antcouns el w as al s o the def endant ’ s tr i al couns el . T hi s i s a mat t erof pr ot ect i ve nec es s i ty, and i s i nt ended t o ens ur e thata convi ct ed cr i m i nal def endantw i l l not be pr ecl uded f

r om the opportuni ty t o r ai s e the cl ai m thath e o r she w as deni ed hi s orher
c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to a d e q u a te le g a l r e p re s e n ta tio n . R ead , 430 So. 2d at837. ¶1 9 . W h e n a c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t is re p re se n ted o n a p p e a l b y co u n sel w h o ac ti v ely part i ci pat ed i n the d efendant ’ s def ens e attr i al , a cha r ge thatthe def endantw as pr ovi ded in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l ru n s c o u n ter to b o th in ten tio n s. F irst a n d fo re m o st, a s th is C our ts t at ed i n R ead , “i ti s absur d t o fa nt as i ze that[ a] l aw yerm i ghtef f ect i vel y l i t i gat e theR ead w as notaddr es s i ng a s el f
- i nef f ect i venes s cl ai m , butr atherw as r eas oni ng w hy 4 in e ffe c tiv e -a ss ista n c e -o f-c o u n se l cla im s, a s th e sta te w a s try in g to a rg u e , m u st n o t b e h e ld t o the pr ocedur al s t andar d–r equi r i ng ques t i ons r ai s ed on appe al t o have f i r s tbeen pr es erved in th e tr ia l c o u rt b e lo w . 

### Apparently, thi s wa s the rea son f or the Minnick Co urt do ingso. Minni ck , 551 S o. 5 2d at99. 

### 9 i s s ue of hi s ow n i nef

f ect i venes s . ” R ead , 4 3 0 S o . 2 d a t 8 3 8 . S e c o n d , w e re th is C o u rt to 4 ent ert ai n s uch a cl ai m , and ther eaf t erdeny i ton the mer i t s , underthe doctr i nes of col l at er al
es t oppel and r es j udi cat a the cr i m i nal def endan tw oul d be pr ecl uded f r om r e- r ai s i ng the i s s ue( s ) or the cl ai m i n a post - convi ct i on proc eedi ng. A nd t hi r d, apartf r om the pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r eas ons , thi s type of cl ai m , as t he C our tof A ppeal s apt l y not ed, l eave s qu est i on s. ¶20. T hus, a sel f- i neff ect i ven ess cl ai m is ab sol utel y i nap propri at e and mustnot be p e rm itt e d . In th e e v e n t a re v iew in g c o u rt fin d s itse lf p re se n ted w ith su c h a c laim , itsh o u ld
n o t ad d ress an d ru le u p o n the m att er d u ri n g a d ir ec t ap p ea l, n o m att er h o w c learly the rec o rd ind icates ba selessn ess. T h e o n ly m ea n s by w h ich a review ing co u rtad eq u ately c an en su re 5 th a t a c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t re p re se n ted o n a p p e a l b y h is o r h e r tria l co u n se l h a s th e o p p o rtu n ity atl eas tt o f

ul l y r ai s e an i nef

f ect i venes s cl ai m i s vi a a pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ng. ¶21. O urrul i ng, of

cour s e, i s notmeantt o pr eventthe courtf r om act i ng on di r ectappea l i n the extr aor di nary eventthatthe r ecor d cl ear l y s how s i nef f ect i ve tr i al as s i s t ance of
cons t i tut i onal di m ens i ons by the s ame couns el r epr es ent i ng the def endanton appea l . I n any s uch ca s e, the r evi ew i ng courts i m pl y w oul d f or m al l y addr es s the mer i t s of the

### 10

in e ff e c tiv e n e s s is s u e th e re in in v o k e d p ri o r to r e m a n d in g th e c a s e f o r a n e w tr ia l. R ead , 430 S o . 2 d at 84 1 . In th e c ase su b jud ice, ha v ing ca refu ll y an d tho rou g h ly rev iew ed the re co rd her ei n bef

or e thi s C our t , w e f

i nd no s uch i ns t ance . ¶2 2 . T h e rec o rd rev ea ls that A rch er’s ap p ell an t co u n sel ap p are n tl y o n ly assisted A rch er’s lead co u n sel at tr ial . T h e rec o rd d o es n o t i n d icate to w h at ex tent h e w as in v o lved ; ho w ev er, hi s part i ci pat i on i n the appe l l ant ’ s def ens e attr i al r egardl ess of hi s r ol e, by i m put at i on, as cr i bes any pot ent i al cl ai m of def i ci entand pr ej udi ci al tr i al per for m ance unt o hi m s el f as w ell , an d co n seq u en tl y co n sti tutes a self- ineffec ti v en ess c lai m . T h ere for e , A rch er’s i nef f ect i ve-as si st ance - of

- couns el cl ai m i s di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce. A r cherw i l l be al l ow ed, i f

he choos es , t o f

i l e an appr opr i at e pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ng r ai s i ng the i nef f ect i ve- as s i s t ance - of

- couns el i s s ue. If

hi s appl i cat i on st at es a pr i m a f aci e cl ai m , he then
w i l l be ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i ary hear i ng on t he m eri t s of thati s s ue i n the C i r cui tC our tof H ol m es C ounty. O nce the i s s ue has be en f or m al l y a dj udi cat ed by the ci r cui tcourt , A r cher
w i l l al s o have the r i ghtt o appea l thatcourt ’ s deci s i on. I I . W HE T HE R T HE DE F E ND AN T W AS DE NI E D A RI GHT T O A TR I AL BY A F AI R AND I M P ART I AL J URY. A . W het her t he t ri al c ourt e rre d by denyi ng t he def endant’ s reques t t hat j uror num ber 11 be re m oved on chal l enge f or caus e. ¶23 . U nd er s et t l ed law i n M i ssi ssi pp i , “a j uror w ho m ay b e rem ov ed o n ch al l eng e for cause i s one agai ns tw hom a caus e f orchal l enge exi s t s t hatw oul d l i kel y ef f ect( s i c) hi s compet ency orhi s i m part i al i ty attr i al . ” E v a n s v . S ta te , 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 6 1 3 , 6 5 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ), cer t . deni ed , 52 5 U. S. 11 33 , 11 9 S. Ct . 10 97 , 14 3 L. Ed. 2d 34 ( 19 99 ) ( qu ot i ng B ill io t v. S ta te , 454 So.

### 11

2 d 4 4 5 , 4 5 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 4 ), cer t . deni ed , 469 U . S. 123 0, 1 05 S. C t . 1232, 84 L . E d. 2d 369 (1 9 8 5 ), r eh'

g deni ed , 4 7 0 U .S . 1 0 8 9 , 1 0 5 S . C t. 1 8 5 8 , 8 5 L . E d . 2 d 1 5 4 (1 9 8 5 )); Arm s tr ong v. S ta te , 2 1 4 S o . 2 d 5 8 9 , 5 9 3 (M is s . 1 9 6 8 ), cer t . deni ed , 3 9 5 U. S. 9 6 5 , 8 9 S. Ct . 2 1 0 9 , 2 3 L. E d. 2 d 75 0 ( 19 69 ) ( " Thos e [ j ur or s ] who s a y tha tthe y c ou l d f ol l ow t he e vi de nce a nd t he i ns truct i ons of the courtshoul d be re t ai ned, and t hos e w ho cannotfol l ow t he i ns truct i ons of th e c o u rt sh o u ld b e re lea se d ” ). F in d in g a p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r c o m p e ten t t o sit an d im p a rtially heara cr i m i nal m att eri s a j udi ci al ques t i on r es erved f orthe tr i al j udg e, and w i l l notbe d is tu rb e d u n le s s c le a rl y w ro n g . D e n n is v. S ta te , 5 5 5 S o . 2 d 6 7 9 , 6 8 2 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ); W a lls
v. S ta te , 3 7 1 S o . 2 d 4 1 1 , 4 1 3 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 ). ¶24. I n hi s a ppeal , the def endantof

f er s nothi ng more than a c oncl us i ve as s ert i on thatthe tr i al courterr ed by denyi ng hi s chal l enge f orcaus e as t o j ur ornum ber1 1, b ase d on her di s cl os ur e thats he ca s ual l y knew the vi ct i m i n thi s cas e f r om havi ng seen hi m i n the
co m m u n ity . T h is i s n o t eno u g h to p lace the tri al co u rtin erro r. ¶25. A t angent i al r el at i ons hi p w i th t he vi ct i m i n a cr i m i nal cas e, by i t s el f , i s nota s uf

f i ci ent re a s o n to e x c lu d e a p o te n tia l ju ro r f o r c a u s e . See B e ll v. S ta te , 725 So . 2d 83 6, 84 6 (M i ss. 1 9 9 8 ) (“ M e re a c q u a in tan c e o r e v e n fa m ily re latio n sh ip s w ith p a rties o r th o se re late d to p arti es is n o t suffi cien t t o req u ir e tha t a ju ror b e ex cu sed fo r ca u se” ). M o reo v er, th e re co rd
r eve a l s tha t , f

ol l owi ng the j ur or ’ s di s c l os ur e , the tr i a l c ou r tc on du c t e d a f ol l owup i nq ui r y. T he j ur oraf

f i r m at i vel y i ndi cat ed thi s r el at i ons hi p w oul d notpr eventherf r om be i ng f

ai rand i m part i al , norw oul d i taf f ectherabi l i ty t o r enderj udgm entbas ed s ol el y on the evi dence

### In Ha n sen v. S tate , 59 2 S o. 2 d 1 14 , 12 9-3 0 (M iss. 19 91 ), ce rt. de nie d, 504 U.S. 6 

### 92 1, 1 12 S. C t. 19 70 , 11 8 L . Ed . 2d57 0 (1 99 2), re h’g de nie d, 5 0 5 U .S . 1 2 3 1, 1 12 S. C t. 3060, 120 L. Ed. 2d 924 ( 1992), thi s Cour t he ld: Th e reasonfor th e rule is th at th e app ellant h as the p ow er to cure sub stantially anyerr or s o l on g a s heha s r e m a i ningunus e d p e r e mpt or y c hal l e ng e s . We would put

theint egrit

y of the tri alproc es s at

ris k we rewet o all ow a

li ti gant to refrainfrom u si n gh is peremp torychallen ges an d, su ffering an adverse verdict at t

ri al , s ec urere ver sal on a

ppea l on grounds that

thecirc uit

did not do wh at app ellant who lly h ad p ow er to d o. 12 present ed. T he tr i al cou rt ’s decis i on no tt o g rantthe d efendan t ’s causal chall eng e w as a di s cr et i onary f

i ndi ng, w hi ch the def

endanthas f

ai l ed t o s how w as w r ongl y deci ded. ¶26. Fur therm or e, the def ens e acc ept ed j ur or num ber 11 w i th f our per empt ory chal l enges r emai ni ng. A party w ho choos es nott o chal l enge a j ur orper empt or i l y w hen he has unus ed chal l enges m ay notther eaf t ers eek t o putt he t r i al cour ti n err orbecaus e t he courtdecl i ned to p e rm it th e ju ro r t o b e c h a lle n g e d fo r c a u s e . D a v is v . S ta te , 66 0 S o. 2d 12 28 , 12 44 (M i ss. 1995) ( ci t i ng Me tteta l v. S ta te , 6 0 2 S o . 2 d 8 6 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 )); H a n se n v. S ta te , 592 So. 2d 1 1 4 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 ), cer t . deni ed, 5 0 4 U . S . 9 2 1 , 1 1 2 S . C t. 1 9 7 0 , 1 1 8 L . E d . 2 d 5 7 0 (19 9 2 ),
r e h 'gd e n ie d

, 50 5 U . S . 123 1, 112 S. C t . 306 0, 120 L . E d. 2d 92 4 (199 2). T o h old ot herw i se w oul d al l ow the de fendantt o i nvi t e err orand l at ert ake a dvant age of i ton appea l . T he 6 appel l ant ’ s ar gum entthatthe tr i al courterr ed by r ef us i ng t o r em ov e jur ornum ber11 f or c a u se is w ith o u t m e rit. B . W het her t he t ri al c ourt e rre d by not s ua s ponte r em ovi n g juror num ber 21 f

rom t he veni re .

### 13

¶27. A r cher ’ s ar gum entthatj ur or21 s houl d ha ve been r emoved on t he court ’ s ow n m ot i on charges essen ti all y that the jur or’ s r el at i on shi p w i th the vi ct i m and her ci rcum st ance a s a p rio r v ictim h e rse lf d isq u a lified h e r a s a c o m p e ten t ju ro r in th is c a se . A rc h e r su b m its th a t, re g a rd les s o f h is c o u n se l’s fa ilu re e ith e r to c h a llen g e th e ju ro r fo r c a u se o r to p e re m p to rily strik e h e r f

ro m th e v e n ire p a n e l, th e trial c o u rt n e v e rth e les s w a s o b lig a ted to e x c lu d e th is j uror based on her di scl osures. ¶28. A gai n, A r cherprovi des t hi s C our tnot hi ng ot hert han a bl anketass ert i on t hatthe tr i al
c o u rt e rre d . L a c k o f re a so n in g n o tw ith sta n d in g , A rc h e r’s c o n ten tio n is re jec ted o n b o th p roc ed u ral an d su b stan ti v e g rou n d s. P roc ed u rall y , a p arty’s fail u re to o b ject t o a juro r’s compet ency t o s i tbef or e the j ury w as empanel ed cons t i tut es , bas ed on unequi vocal p ri n c ip le s , a p ro c e d u ra l b a r. See M y e rs v. S ta te , 5 6 5 S o . 2 d 5 5 4 , 5 5 7 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 0 ) ( " [ A] p a rty w h o fails to o b

jec t t o the jur y ' s c o m p o sitio n b e fo re it i s e m p a n e led w a iv e s a n y rig h t to compl ai n ther eaf

t er ") . I n l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s , thi s C our tw i l l setasi de t he pr ocedur al bar and r e ve r s e w he n i ti s c l e a rtha ta j ur ordi s qu a l i f i e d u nd e rM i s s i s s i pp i Code A nn ot a t ed S e c tio n 1 3 -5 -6 7 w a s n o t r e m o v e d b e fo re th e ju ry re tir e d to c o n s id e r i ts v e rd ic t. Caldw el l v. S ta te , 381 So. 2d 591, 594 ( M i s s . 1980). E s s ent i al l y, t hi s re qui r es a show i ng t hatthe j ur or i n ques t i on has been c onvi ct ed of an “i nf amous cr i m e” orhas w i t hh el d i nf or m at i on or m i s r epr es ent ed mat er i al f act s thatw oul d have pr ovi ded a l egi t i m at e bas i s f orchal l enge. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 3 -5 -6 7 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ); M y e rs v. S ta te , 5 6 5 S o . 2 d a t 5 5 8 ; see al so O dom
v. S ta te , 3 5 5 S o . 2 d 1 3 8 1 , 1 3 8 3 (M iss. 1 9 7 8 ).T he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatt he def ens e had thr ee pe r empt ory chal l enges r emai ni ng at 7 the t i m e i tacc ept ed j ur ornum ber21. 

### 14 ¶29. A r cher has f

ai l ed t o s how ei ther . T her e i s nothi ng i n the r ecor d t o i ndi cat e thatj ur or 21 ha d be en convi ct ed of a n i nf amous c r i m e atthe t i m e s he w as e m panel ed to r ender j udgm enti n thi s cas e. N ori s ther e any i ndi cat i on thatj ur or21 w i thhel d orm i s r epr es ent ed any i nf or m at i on orm at er i al fa ct s t hatot herw i s e w oul d have made heri ncompet entt o s i tas a f ai rand i m part i al j ur orthr oughou t , or thatdi s advant aged the def ens e i n i t s deci s i on w hethert o chal l enge he rf orcaus e ort o exer ci s e a pe r empt ory chal l enge. 7 ¶30. Subst ant i vel y, under M i s s i s s i ppi l aw , any per s on not di s qual i f i ed underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 13- 5- 1, w ho w i l l m ake oath t hathe or s he i s i m part i al , i s compet ent t o s i tas a j ur ori n a cr i m i nal cas e. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 13- 5- 79 ( R ev. 2002) . T he tr i al j udge
w hos e duty is to s ee thata compet ent , f ai r , and i m part i al j ury i s empanel ed, i s empow er ed
w i th br oad di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne w hethera pr os pect i ve j ur orcan be f ai rand i m part i al –n otw i thst and i ng the juro r’ s adm i ssi on un der oat h thathe o r s he w i l l be. M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 1 3 -5 -7 9 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ); B u rt v . S ta te , 4 9 3 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 2 7 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ). T h is C our tr ecogni zes thatthe tr i al j udge i s i n the bes tpos i t i on t o det erm i ne w hetherthe j ury as s el ect ed w as f

ai rand i m part i al , and ther ef or e yiel ds to a tr i al court ’ s di s cr et i onary f i ndi ng thata compet entj ury, underi t s oath t o be f ai r and i m part i al , w as empanel ed t o r ender ju d g m e n t, a n d w ill n o t re v e rs e a b s e n t c le a r a b u s e o f t h a t d is c re tio n . Ca sto n v. S ta te , 823 So. 2 d 4 7 3 , 4 9 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ); B e ll v. S ta te , 725 So. 2d at846.

### 15

¶31. T he r ecor d s how s j ur or 21 w as f or thr i ght i n eac h of her r es pons es t o ques t i ons pos ed dur i ng voi r di re. T he j ur oraf f i r m at i vel y i ndi cat ed thatnei therherr el at i ons hi p w i th the vi ct i m i n thi s cas e, norherpr i orc i r cumst ance a s a r obbery vi ct i m , w oul d pr eventherf r om bei ng f ai rand i m part i al , norw oul d i taf f ectherabi l i ty t o rende r j udgm entbas ed s ol el y on th e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . A r c h e rh a s f a i l e d t o s h o w w h y th e tr i a l c o u r t ’ s b e l i e f i n th e j u r o r 's
o ath to rem ain fa iran d im p arti al th rou g h o u t w as e rror. A rch er’s claim that the tri al co u rt e rre d b y n o t su a sp o n te r e m o v in g ju ro r n u m b e r 2 1 is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶32. T he j udgm entof the C i r cui tC our tof

H ol m es C ounty i s af

f i r m ed. ¶ 3 3 . C O N V IC T IO N O F A R M E D R O B B E R Y A N D SE N T E N C E O F T E N ( 10) YE AR S , W I T H T W O ( 2 ) YE AR S S US P E ND E D, I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND D I AZ , P . J J . , CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND R A N D O LP H , JJ . , C O N C U R. LA M A R , J. , C O N C U R S I N R ESU LT O N LY . G R A V ES, J . , DI S S EN TS W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.