I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 1 9 9 9 - DR- 0 1 8 2 8 - S CT EDW I N H ART TURNER
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 15/ 1997 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . C . E . M O R G A N , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: CARROLL COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : J AM E S W . CR AI G J AN E E. TUC KER 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 : M AR VI N L. W HI TE N A TU RE O F TH E C A SE: CI V I L - D EA TH PEN A LTY - PO ST CO NVI CT I ON DI S P OS I T I ON: P E T I T I ON F OR P OS T - CO NVI CT I ON R E L I E F D E N I E D - 01/ 04/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. E dw i n H artTur ner( T urner ) s hota nd ki l l ed E ddi e B r ooks a nd Ever ettCurry dur i ng r o b b e r i e s o f

two c o n v e n i e n c e s t o r e s i n C a rr o l l C o u n ty . A j u ry f i r s tf o u n d h i m g u i l ty o f

two c o u n ts o f c a p ital m u rd e r a n d su b se q u e n tly fo u n d th a t T u rn e r sh o u ld b e se n te n c e d to d e a th fo r b o th m u rd e rs. T u rn e r' s a p p e a l fro m th o se c o n v ictio n s a n d se n ten c e s w a s a ffirm e d b y th is C o u rt , a n d re h e a ri n g w a s d e n ie d . Tu rn e r v. S ta te , 732 So. 2d 937 ( M i s s . 1999) . T he U ni t ed

### 2

S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ie d c e rt io ra ri . Turnerv. Mis s is s i ppi , 528 U . S. 969, 120 S. C t . 409, 1 4 5 L . E d . 2 d 3 1 9 (19 9 9 ). ¶ 2 . B o th th ro u g h c o u n se l an d p ro s e , T u rn e r n o w a s k s th is C o u rt to g ra n t h im p o stconvi ct i on r el i ef

pur s uantt o M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i ons 99- 39- 1, ets eq. H e r ai s es num er ous issue s, p ri m arily re lated to effec ti v en ess o f his att o rne y s at tri al an d o n ap p ea l. A ft er a th o ro u g h re v iew o f th e c laim s ra ise d in th e p e tit io n s, th e C o u rt fin d s th a t T u rn e r fa iled to es t abl i s h thathi s att orneys w er e i nef f ect i ve and thatthe otherc l ai m s r ai s ed i n the pet i t i ons la c k m e ri t. A c c o rd in g ly , th e p e titio n s a re d e n ie d .

F ACT UAL AND P ROCE DURAL BA CKGROUND ¶ 3 . T u rn e r’ s a c c o m p lice , P a u l M u rre ll S tew a rt (S tew a rt), c o n fe ss e d h is in v o lv e m e n t in the r obber i es and murde r s . St ew artpl ed gui l ty t o tw o count s of capi t al m ur derand r ece i ved
cons ecut i ve l i f

e s ent ence s w i thoutpa r ol e. A s pa r tof hi s pl ea a gr eement , he agr eed t o t es t i f y. A t trial, S tew a rt tes tified th a t h e a n d T u rn e r sp e n t th e n ig h t o f D e c e m b e r 1 2 a n d th e e a rly
m orni ng hours of D ece m ber13, 1997, dr i vi ng ar ound C arr ol l and Lef l or e C ount i es dr i nki ng beerand s m oki ng m ar i

j uana. T hey dec i ded t o r ob a c onveni ence s t or e. T urnerw as arm ed
w i th a 6 mi l l i m et err i f

l e, and St ew artw as a r m ed w i th a . 243 r i f l e. T hey dr ove t o M i m s O ne St op on U . S. H i ghw ay 82 be tw een C arr ol l t on a nd G r eenw ood. A f t ers ur veyi ng the s cene , t he y de c i de d tha tthe s t or e was t oo c r owded s o the y l e f ta nd d r ov e wes tt o a not her conveni ence s t or e on H i ghw ay 82. T he s econd s t or e, M i m s T ur key V i l l age Truc k St op, w as occupi ed onl y by one cl erk, E ddi e B r ooks . A s T urnerand St ew artent er ed t he s t or e, T ur ner o rd e re d B ro o k s to g e t d o w n o n th e flo o r. B e fo re B ro o k s c o u ld c o m p ly , T u rn e r sh o t h im in the che s tw i t h t he 6 m i l l i m et err i f l e. H ow ever , nei therT urnernorSt ew artcoul d open the

### 3

cas h r egi s t er . B oth f

i r ed thei rr i f

l es i nt o the ca s h regi st er , buti ts t i l l w oul dn’ topen. M eant i m e, B r ooks w as s t i l l al i ve, l yi ng w ounded o n the f l oor . B ef

or e they f

l ed the s cene , T urnerpl ace d the barr el of hi s r i f l e t o Brooks ’ s f

ace a nd pul l ed the tr i gger . T he s econd s hot p ro v e d to b e fa ta l. ¶ 4 . A fte r f

a ili n g to o b tain m o n e y fr o m th e c a sh re g is ter , T u rn e r a n d S tew a rt d e c id e d to return to M im s O n e S top . T h e y p ark ed b eh ind the s tore a n d h ea d ed tow ard the d o o r. St ew artw ent i nt o the s t or e and or der ed the ca s hi ert o open the ca s h r egi s t er . T ur ner encount er ed Ever ettC urr y pum pi ng gas i n f r ontof the s t or e. W hi l e St ew artw as i nsi de
ro b b in g th e sto re , T u rn e r o rd e re d C u rry to th e g ro u n d a n d to o k c a sh fro m C u rry ’s w a llet. A s Curry l ai d on the gr ound pl eadi ng f orhi s l i f e, T urnerunm er ci f

ul l y s hothi m i n the hea d. M eanw hi l e, St ew artt ook appr oxi m at el y $400 fr om the cas h r egi s t er . T he tw o f l ed the s cene and r eturned t o T urner ’ s hous e. C urry w as abandone d t o di e. ¶5 . B ase d o n their inv esti g ati o n o f the rob b eries an d k il li n g s, law e n forc em en t offi ce rs s us pect ed Turne ri n t he murde r s . O ne w i tnes s had r eport ed thatone of the perpetr at or s had
a w hi t e t ow el w r apped a r ound hi s f ace . T urnerw as know n t o w r ap a t ow el ar ound hi s f ace to c o n c e a l h is d isfig u re m e n t fro m a b o tch e d su icid e a ttem p t. T u rn e r w a s a lso a su sp e c t in
a m otorveh i cl e viol at i on and forfl eei ng po l i ce i n L efl ore C ou nty the n i gh to f the sho oti ng s. A w arr ant had b een is sued for hi s arres ton tho se charges. ¶6. T her ef

or e, of f i cer s s ought t o ques t i on T urner . T urner al l ow ed them i nt o the hou se w h ere tw o ri fl es w ere o b serv ed . In a c ar o u tsi d e the h o u se, officers fo u n d tw o it em s - a w hi t e pl as t i c mask l i ke one r eport ed t o be use d i n one of the r obber i es and a r i f

l e s hel l . A f

t er obt ai ni ng a w arr ant , the of f i cer s s ei zed a 6 m i l l i m et err i f l e and a . 243 r i f

l e, al ong w i th s ever al

### 4

boxes of amm uni t i on. T he St at e’ s fi r earm s expertl at ert es t i f i ed t hatt he she l l cas i ngs f ound atthe s cene of

B r ooks ’ s m ur dercame f r om the tw o r i f

l es f ound i n T urner’ s home. A ddi t i onal l y, T urner ’ s fi ngerpr i nt s w er e f ound on t he 6 mi l l i m et err i f l e. Fi nal l y, the ca s hi er at M im s O n e S top iden ti fi ed T u rne r. ¶7. T urnerw as i ndi ct ed for t w o cou nts of c api t al m ur der . T he tr i al courtgr ant ed the def ens e’ s m ot i on f

ora tr ans f

erof venue. T he ca s e w as tr i ed i n For r es tC ounty. T urnerw as convi ct ed of

bot h count s . A f

t erhear i ng evi dence of

m i t i gat i on, the j ury f

ound thatT ur ner had ac tual l y ki l l ed B r ooks and C urr y, thathe ha d a t t empt ed t o ki l l both vi ct i m s , thathe had i nt ended thatthe ki l l i ngs t ake pl ace , and thati n both i ns t ance s , h e had cont empl at ed that l ethal for ce w oul d be em pl oyed. Fi nal l y, t he j ury f ound thatboth ki l l i ngs w er e comm i t t ed f orpecuni ary gai n dur i ng the arm ed r obber i es . O n bot h count s , the j ury f ound thatthe
m i t i gat i ng f

act or s di d notoutw ei gh the aggr avat i ng f act or s and thatT urners houl d be
s ent ence d t o death. A N A L Y S IS ¶8. In hi s pet i t i on forpo st -convict i on r el i ef, T urner rai ses t en i ssues. A l l but tw o o f tho se cl ai m s a r e al l egat i ons of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

c ouns el . T he i s s ues r ai s ed i n the pet i t i on ar e: I . V enue t rans f er f rom C arrol l C ounty. ¶ 9 . T u rn e rr e t a i n e d two r e n o wn e d a t t o r n e y s , J o h n Co l l e t t e o f J a c k s o n a n d J a me s K. D u k e s o f H a tti e sb u rg . C o llette c o n tin u e d to re p re se n t T u rn e r in th e d ire c t ap p e a l. C o llette
a n d D u k e s e n

jo y a sta tew id e re p u tat io n o f re sp e c t an d c o m p e ten c y , an d b o th a re w e ll seasoned tri al at t orneys w i th y ears of expe ri ence in repr esent i ng cri m i nal def end ants .

### 5

¶1 0 . T h e stan d ard for de term ining if a c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t re c e iv e d c o n stitu tio n a lly ef f ect i ve couns el i s w el l es t abl i s hed. "The benc hm ark f orj udgi ng an y cl ai m of i nef f ect i venes s [ of

couns el ] m us tbe w het her co uns el ' s conducts o underm i ned the pr oper f unct i oni ng of

the adve r s ar i al pr oces s thatthe tr i al cannotbe r el i ed on as havi ng pr oduced a j ustres ult . " Str i ckland v. W as hington , 46 6 U . S . 66 8 , 68 6 (198 4). A defend ant m ust d e m o n stra te th a t h is a tto rn e y ' s a c tio n s w e re d e fic ien t and thatthe def

i ci ency pr ej udi ced the d e fe n s e o f t h e c a s e . Id
. a t 6 8 7 . "U n les s a d e fe n d a n t m a k e s b o th sh o w in g s, it ca n n o t b e sa id thatthe convi ct i on ordeath sent ence re s ul t ed f r om a br eakdow n i n the adve r s ary pr oces s t hat renders the resul tun rel i able. " S trin g e r v . S ta te , 454 So. 2d 468, 477 ( M i s s . 1 984), ci t i ng Str i ckl and v. W

as hington , 46 6 U. S. a t68 7. The f oc us of the i nq ui ry mus tbe w het her
c o u n s e l' s a s s is ta n c e w a s re a s o n a b le c o n s id e ri n g a ll th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . I d. J udi ci al s crut i ny of

couns el ' s per f

or m ance m us tbe hi gh l y de f er ent i al . ( ci t at i on o m itted) .. . A fair assessm en t of att o rne y p e rfo rm an ce req u ir es th at ev ery ef f ortb e m ade t o el i m i nat e the di s t or t i ng ef f ect s of hi nds i ght , t o r econs truct the ci r cumst ance s of

couns el ' s chal l enged c onduct , and t o eval uat e the conduc t fro m c o u n se l' s p e rsp e c tiv e a t th e ti m e . B e c a u se o f th e d iffic u lti e s in h e re n t in m aki ng the eval uat i on, a c our tmusti ndul ge a s tr ong pr es um pt i on t hat couns el ' s conductf

al l s w i t hin t he w i de r ange of r eas onabl e pr of

es s i onal as s i s t ance ; thati s , the def endantm us tover come the pr es um pt i on that , under the ci r cumst ance s , t he ch al l enged a ct i on ' m i ghtbe cons i der ed s ound tr i al s tr a t e g y . ' S trin ger, 454 So. 2d at477, ci t i ng Str i c kl and , 466 U . S. at689. D ef

ens e couns el i s pr es um ed
c o m p e te n t. J

o h n so n v. S ta te , 476 So. 2d 1195, 1204 ( M i s s . 1985) T h en , to de term ine the seco n d pro n g of pre jud ice t o th e d efe n se, th e stan d ard i s "a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty that , butf orcouns el ' s un prof

es s i onal err or s , the res ultof the p roceeding w ou l d h ave been dif fer ent. " Mo h r v . S ta te , 584 So. 2d 426, 430 ( M i s s . 1991) . T hi s m eans a "pr obabi l i ty s uf f i ci entt o underm i ne the c o n fi d e n c e in th e o u tc o m e ." I d.

. . .

### 6

T h e re is n o c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t th e n to e rr o rl e s s c o u n s e l. Ca b e llo v. S ta te , 524 S o .2 d 3 1 3 , 3 1 5 (M iss .1 9 8 8 ); Mo h r v . S ta te , 584 So. 2d 426, 430 ( M i s s . 1991) ( r i ghtt o ef

f ect i ve couns el does notent i t l e def endantt o have a n att orney w ho m akes no m i s t akes attr i al ; def endantj us thas r i ghtt o hav e compet ent couns el ) . I f

the pos t - convict i on appl i cat i on f ai l s on ei therof

the Str i c kl

and p ro n g s , th e p ro c e e d in g s e n d . N eal v. State, 52 5 So. 2d 1279, 1281 (M iss .1 9 8 7 ); Mo h r v . S ta te , 5 8 4 S o .2 d 4 2 6 (M is s .1 9 9 1 ). D a v is v . S ta te , 743 So. 2d 326, 334 ( M i s s . 1999) , ci t i ng Fo ste r v . S ta te , 687 So. 2d 1124, 1130 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 ). ¶11. T urnerf

i r s tar gues that hi s at t orneys w ere i neff ect i ve i n aski ng thatvenue be tra n sfe rre d fro m C a rro ll C o u n ty . U p o n th e a d v ice o f c o u n se l, T u rn e r k n o w in g ly w a iv e d h is rig h t to b e tried in C a rro ll C o u n ty . In retro sp e c t, T u rn e r n o w m a in tain s th a t C a rro ll C o u n ty
r es i dent s and pot ent i al j ur or s l i kel y w oul d have know n abouthi s t r oubl ed f ami l y hi s t or y and hi s ps ychi atr i c tr eatm ent s . H i s unper s uas i ve ar gum enti s thatC arr ol l C ounty j ur or s m i ght h a v e b e e n m o re le n ie n t th a n th e ju ro rs o f F o rr e s t C o u n ty . ¶12 . T he o nly case c i t ed b y T urner i s S ta te v . Ca ldw e ll , 4 9 2 S o . 2 d 5 7 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ). In Ca ldw e ll , the def

endant ’ s death penal t y tr i al w as tr ans f err ed t o anothercounty att he def endant ’ s r eques t . H e w as convi ct ed and s ent ence d t o de ath. U l t i m at el y, the U ni t ed St at es Supr e me Courtr e ve r s e d the de a th s e nt e nc e a nd r e mand e d f ora ne w s e nt e nc i ng hear i ng. U pon r e mand , Cal dwel l r e qu e s t e d tha tthe h e a r i ng b e h e l d i n the o r i gi na l c ou nty. T hat requestw as deni ed by the tr i al j udge. T hi s C our tf ound thatC al dw el l had the r i ghtt o be tr i ed i n the county w her e t he cr i m e occurr ed and t he f actt hathe had pre vi ous l y w ai ved that ri g h t w a s n o t b in d in g , a ft e r a n a p p e lla te c o u rt la te r r e v e rs e d fo r a n e w tr ia l. Id . at577. ¶ 1 3 . Ca ldw e ll i s di s t i ngui s habl e, as i tdi d noti nvol ve i s s ues of att orney ef

f ect i venes s . T he i s s ue ther e w as w hetherthe def endanthad the r i ghtt o “undo” a pr evi ous r eques tt o tr ans f er

### 7

venue f r om w her e the cr i m e w as c om m i t t ed i n a s ubs equentpr ocee di ng. T he C our tf ound th a t h e still h a d th e rig h t to b e tried in th a t co u n ty . T u rn e r h a d th e rig h t to b e tri e d in C a rro ll C ou nty. H ow ever, he w ai ved that r i gh tand ven ue w as properl y tr ansferred t o F orr est C o u n ty . In th e a b se n c e o f re m a n d , the iss u e o f w h e re h e w o u ld lik e to b e tried is m o o t. ¶14. T urnerass ert s t hat hi s at t orneys w ere i neff ect i ve i n request i ng tha tvenue be tr ans f err ed, butf

ai l s t o of f erpr oof thatw oul d demonstr at e thatthe att orneys ’ per f or m ance w as def i ci ent . A ny pr ej udi ce c l ai m ed by Turne ri s ent i r el y hypothet i cal . T urnerhas not s how n, and w e ponder , how i tc oul d be s how n, thata C arr ol l C ounty j ury w oul d have f ound dif fer ent l y. See Ca b e llo v. S ta te , 5 2 4 S o . 2 d 3 1 3 , 3 1 7 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ); G ill ia rdv. S ta te , 462 S o. 2d 71 0, 71 4 (M i ss. 19 85 ) ( fi nd i ng that pet i t i on ers h ad show n no p rej ud i ce i n att orneys’ fail u re to se ek tr an sfer o f ve n u e). ¶15 . A dd i t i on al l y, T urner canno tov ercom e the p res um pti on that, un der the ci rcum st ances, s eeki ng a ch ang e o f venue w as s ound tr i al s tr at egy. See K n ox v. Sta te , 901 So. 2d 1257, 1262 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng Str ingerv. State , 454 So. 2d 468, 4 77 (M i s s . 1984) . I n W ilcher
v. S ta te , 863 So. 2d 719, 750 ( M i s s . 2003) thi s Courthe l d that“def ens e couns el i s underno duty t o at t empt t o tr ans f ervenue a nd, ther ef

or e, the de ci s i on nott o w oul d f al l w i thi n the
r eal m of s tr at egy. W e f

i nd that , l i kew i s e, the dec i s i on t o obt ai n a ve nue change i s w i thi n t he
rea lm o f strateg y . ” (In terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). ¶16. T urner ’ s at t orneys fi l ed a m ot i on i n w hi ch they al l eged thatt her e had been “a gr eat d e a l o f h ig h ly p re

ju d icia l an d a d v e rse p e rv a siv e p u b licity in th is c a se , inc lu d in g b o th m e d ia and w ord of m ou th pu bli ci ty, m aking a f ai r tri al i m po ssi ble. ” O n the d ay aft er the m urders , th e G re e n w o o d C o m m o n w e a lth p rin ted a sto ry ab o u t th e crim e s w ith a p ictu re o f T u rn e r in

### 8

handcuf f s af t erhi s arr es t . T he att orneys ’ deci s i on t hatT urnerw as m or e l i kel y t o geta bett er re su lt i n a n o th e r c o u n ty w a s m o re th a n ju stifie d . T h e q u e stio n is w h e th e r c o u n se l' s s tra teg ic advi ce r es ul t ed i n s uch a br eakdow n i n the adver sar i al pr oces s s o thatthe convi ct i on and
s e n te n c e w e re re n d e re d u n re lia b le . S trin g e r v . S ta te , 4 5 4 S o .2 d 4 6 8 , 4 7 7 (M is s .1 9 8 4 ). W e f i nd t hatt her e w er e val i d str at egi c r eas ons forthe at t orneys ’ deci s i on t o r eques ta cha nge of venue f r om C arr ol l C ount y. W e f i nd no def

i ci ency i n the per f

or m ance of

T urner ’ s att or neys o n th a tc l a i m. I I . F ai l ure t o rai s e a B at s on chal l enge . ¶1 7. T ur nercl ai m s t hatdu r i ng j ury s e l e c t i on , hi s l a w ye r s s ho ul d h a ve made a m ot i on pur s uantt o B a ts o n v. K e n tu c k y, 476 U . S. 79, 106 S. Ct . 1712, 90 L . Ed. 2d 69 ( 1986) . T he
rec o rd is sil en t abo u t th e ra cial bre ak d o w n o f th e m em b ers o f th e jury p o o l. T u rne r’s att orneys di d f

i l e a pr e- tr i al m ot i on t o pre ventt he St at e f r om excl udi ng j ur or s bas ed on the juro r’s race . T u rne r an d h is acc o m p li ce S tew art are w h it e. T h e m u rde r vic ti m s w ere A f r i can- A m er i can. ¶ 1 8 . O n c e ag a in , th e atto rn e y s’ p e rfo rm a n c e is pr e su m e d to b e c o m p e te n t. Han s en v. S ta te , 649 So. 2d 1256, 1258 ( M i s s . 1994), an d ther e i s a s tr ong pr es um pt i on thatt he
a tto rn e y s ’ d e c is io n s a re re a s o n a b le a n d s tr a te g ic . T a y lo r v . S ta te , 682 So. 2d at359, 363 ( M i s s . 1 99 6) . J ur ors e l e c t i on d e pe nd s o n s tr a t e gi c c on s i de r a t i on s . To o ve r come t he p resu m p ti o n o f co m p eten ce , T u rne r i s re q u ir ed to p rod u ce m o re tha n m ere sp ec u lat ion o f a B at s on vi ol at i on. T urnerm akes no s peci f i c cl ai m as t o any i ndi vi dual j ur orand he of f er s no s peci f i c ques t i onabl e per empt ory chal l enge ut i l i zed by the St at e. W e f i nd thatT urnerhas

### 9

n eith er sh o w n that h is at torn ey s w ere ineffec ti v e n o r th at he w as p rejud iced as a resu lto f a hypot heti cal def

i ci ency. O nce a gai n, he f ai l s t o s at i s f

y ei therpr ong of

the Str i c kl

and tes t. ¶19 . T urner ci t es T

rip lett v . S ta te , 666 So. 2d 1356 ( M i s s . 1995) . I n T rip lett , the def

endant
w as c onvi ct ed of

mansl aught er . O n a ppeal , thi s C our tdet erm i ned thathi s att orney had f ai l ed t o i nves t i gat e the evi dence and w as unf ami l i arw i th the St at e’ s w i tnes s es and the s cene of t he
c rim e , h a d fa iled to file a m o tio n to su p p re ss th e d e fe n d a n t’s s tate m e n t, ha d fa iled to p ro p e rly ch all en g e juro rs for ca u se, ha d fail ed to sub m itan i n stru cti o n en tai li n g the d efe n se’s the o ry thatt he ki l l i ng had been acc i dent al , and f ai l ed t o m ake a B at

s on m o ti o n . In su m , the C o u rt fo u n d th a t th e a tto rn e y h a d fa ile d to p e rf o rm “ a n y a c t b a s ic to th e d e fe n s e o f t h e a c c u s e d .” Id . at1361. T he C our tconcl uded thatthe att orney w as i nef f ect i ve onl y af

t er“cons i der i ng th e to ta lity o f h is p e rf

o rm a n c e ” . I

d. a t 1 3 6 3 . ¶ 2 0 . T rip lett is cl ea rl y d ist ing u isha b le. T h ere , the a tt o rne y w as il l- p rep are d to g o forw ard
w i th tr i al and the d efendan tw as pr ej udi ced by hi s att orney’ s m ul t i pl e def i ci enci es . T he C our tther e f

ound a “ m arked f

ai l ur e of c ouns el t o f

ul f i l l hi s a dver s ar i al r ol e” a nd underthe t ot al i ty of

the ci r cumst ance s , T r i pl etthad notbe en af f or ded a f ai rtr i al . T he f

ai l ur e t o m ake
a B at s on m o tio n w a s o n ly o n e fa c to r c o n s id e re d in th e o v e ra ll failu re o f th e a tto rn e y to adequa t el y r epr es enthi s cl i ent . T hi s C our thas pr evi ous l y di s t i ngui s hed T rip lett . See L e v. S ta te , 9 1 3 S o .2 d 9 1 3 , 9 5 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ); W ilch e r v . S ta te , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 7 1 9 , 7 4 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). T rip lett i s narr ow l y appl i ed t o cas es al l egi ng m ul t i pl e i ns t ance s of i nef f ect i ve, def

i ci ent c o n d u c t b y a n a tto rn e y . ¶21. I n Sm ith v. S ta te , thi s Courthe l d that“ [ j ] ury s el ect i on i s ge ner al l y a mat t erof t r i al
s tr at egy, and an a t t orney' s deci si on nott o m ake a Batson c h a llen g e d o e s n o t am o u n t to

### 10

i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of counsel abs enta s how i ng of pr ej udi ce t o the def

endant . ”( ci t i ng B u rn s v . S ta te , 8 1 3 S o . 2 d 6 6 8 , 6 7 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 2 )) . ¶22. T urner has show n no pr ej udi ce r es ul t i ng fr om hi s at t orneys ’ deci s i on nott o m ake a B at s on chal l enge, even i f

w e pr es um e a ba s i s exi s t ed f orthe exe rci se of such a chal l enge. II I. F a ilu r e to r a ise se v e r a n c e o f th e in d ict m e n t o n a p p e a l. ¶23. T urnerw as char ged i n one i ndi ctm entw i th tw o s epar at e capi t al m ur der s . T urner w as charged w i th the m urder of Ed die B rooks w hil e h e an d his coh ortat t em pted t o rob the fi rs t conveni ence st ore a nd w i th the murde rof E ver ettC urry dur i ng a r obbery atthe s econd conveni ence s t or e. T urner ’ s a t t orneys moved t o s everthe char ges . T he m ot i on t o s everw as overrul ed. T urneral l eges thathi s att orneys w er e i nef f ect i ve i n fai l i ng t o appea l the tr i al j udge’ s deci s i on nott o gr anta s ever ance . ¶ 2 4 . M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -7 -2 p ro v id e s th a t: ( 1) T w o ( 2) orm or e of f ens es w hi ch ar e tr i abl e i n t he s ame cour tm ay be char ged i n the s ame indi ct m entw i th a s epar at e countf oreac h of

f ens e i f: ( a) the o ffen ses a re b ase d o n the s am e a ct or tran sac ti o n ; or (b) the o ffe n se s a re bas ed on t w o (2) orm or e ac t s ortr ans act i ons connec t ed t ogetheror c o n s titu tin g p a rt s o f a c o m m o n s c h e m e o r p la n . ( 2) W her e tw o ( 2) ormore of f ens es a r e pr oper l y c har ged i n s epar at e count s of a s i ngl e i ndi ctm ent , al l s uch cha r ges m ay be tr i ed i n a s i ngl e pr ocee di ng. R ul e 7. 07 of

the U ni f

or m R ul es of

C i r cui tand C ounty C our tPr act i ce co nt ai ns s i m i l ar provis i on s. ¶25. A t the m ot i on hear i ng, the St at e ar gued that the tw o m ur der s w er e part of a comm on sch em e or pl an. T he S t at e argued that on t he n i gh tof the m urders , T urner and S tew art deci ded t o r ob a s t or e. T hey drove t o t he f i r s ts t or e and l ef

taf t erdeci di ng thati tw as t oo

### 11

cr ow ded. T hey dr ove str ai ghtt o t he se cond st or e w hi ch w as onl y f ourm i l es aw ay. T her e, T urnerm ur der ed Eddi e B r ooks . W hen they coul dn’ tgetthe ca s h r egi s t eropen, they w ent dir ect l y ba ck t o the f

i r s ts t or e w her e T urnermurde r ed E ver ett e C urry. T he s ame g un s, m a s k s , v e h ic le , a n d m o d u s o p e ra n d i w e re in v o lv e d in th e tw o m u rd e rs , m in u te s a p a rt . ¶ 2 6 . T h e re q u ire m e n ts fo r m u lti p le c o u n ts in a sin g le in d ictm e n t w e re d isc u ss e d a t len g th by thi s C our ti n E a k e s v . S ta te , 6 6 5 S o . 2 d 8 5 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ). T h e re , the C o u rt h e ld th a t: W h e n a m u lti -c o u n t in d ictm e n t h a s b e e n re tu rn e d a n d th e d e fe n d a n t re q u e sts s e v e r a n c e , a h e a ri n g s h o u ld b e h e ld o n th e is s u e . Co rle y v. S ta te , 584 So. 2d 769, 772 (M i s s . 1991). ‘ T he St at e bea r s the bur den of a pr i m a f

aci e s how i ng that the o ffen ses a re w ith in the l an g u ag e o f M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -7-2 (19 9 4 ), w h ich a ll o w s m u lt i- co u n t i n d ictm en ts. ’ Cor ley, 5 8 4 S o . 2 d a t 7 7 2 . If th is bur den i s metby the St at e, the def ens e ‘ m ay r ebutby s how i ng thatthe of f ens es w ere sep ara te an d d ist inct ac ts or tr an sac ti o n s. ’ I d. T h e tr ia l c o u rt sh o u ld cons i derthe t i m e per i od betw een the of f ens es , w hetherevi dence pr ovi ng eac h of f ens e w oul d be admi s s i bl e t o pr ove the ot her count s , and w hetherthe o ff e n s e s a re in te rw o v e n . Id
. ‘ I f thi s pr ocedur e i s f

ol l ow ed, thi s C our tw i l l gi ve def er ence t o the tr i al court ' s f i ndi ngs on r evi ew , empl oyi ng the abus e of d iscreti o n stan d ard . ’ Cor ley , 584 So. 2d at772. E akes , 6 6 5 S o . 2 d a t 8 6 1 . See al s o Mc Ca rty v. S ta te , 5 5 4 S o . 2 d 9 0 9 , 9 1 5 -16 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). ¶ 2 7 . A t th e h e a rin g , th e d e fe n s e a rg u e d th a t th e tw o in c id e n ts w e re se p a ra te. T h e S tate
m ai nt ai ned thatthe m ur der s w er e par tof the sa m e sc heme. T he m ur der s t ook pl ace dur i ng th e e x e c u t i o n o f

T u r n e ra n d S t e wa r t ’ s c o mmo n p l a n t o c o mmi tr o b b e r i e s . Th e t i me f r a me in v o lv e d w a s a p p ro x im a tely tw e n ty m in u tes . M u c h o f th e e v id e n c e a t trial re late d to b o th
c rim e s. C lea rly , the tw o m u rd e rs w e re in ter w o v e n . T h e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its dis cret i on i n it s deci si on no tt o sever the co un t s. A ccordi ng l y, the att orneys’ f ai l ure t o rai se th a t is s u e o n a p p e a l is o f n o c o n s e q u e n c e .

### 12

¶28. T urner ’ s r el i ance on Flow ers v . S ta te , 77 3 S o. 2d 30 9 (M i ss. 20 03 ) i s m i s pl ace d. T her e, thi s C our t ’ s r ever s al w as ba s ed noton the f ai l ur e t o s evermul t i pl e count s , butr ather on the St at e’ s i ntr oduct i on of evi dence of

otherm urders , w hi l e tryi ng the def endanton a sin g le in d ictm e n t. I V . F ai l ure t o rai s e on a p peal t he quest i on of w het her t he di s t ri ct at t orney’ s cl osi n g a rgu m en t am ou n ted to an i m p rop er com m ent on the d efend an t’ s f

ail u re to t est i fy an d callw i tnesses . ¶ 2 9 . T u rn e r c a lled n o w itn e s s e s d u rin g th e g u ilt p h a se o f th e trial. In c lo sin g a rg u m e n t, T urner’ s at t orney a rgued thatthe case b oil ed d ow n to the credibi l i ty o f St ew art . T urner al so ar gued thatthe St at e s houl d ha ve cal l ed more w i tnes s es , i ncl udi ng peopl e w ho w er e att he
s econd s t or e dur i ng t he C urr y ki l l i ng. D ur i ng hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent , the D i s tr i ctA t t or ney r es ponded: W e p u t o n 1 7 w itn esse s. O n o n e h an d the D efe n se c o u n sel say s w e sh o u ldn ’t have puton butone. O n the otherhand, they s ay w e s houl d have puton m or e. W e puton the w i tnes s es thatw e thoughty ’al l neede d t o heart o m ake your deci s i on. W e coul d have pr obabl y puto n forty w i tnes s es , butw hy? W e w ant ed t o m ake s ur e t hatyou had t he f act s t hatyou needed t o have. A nd one th in g I w a n t to m a k e su re th a t y ’a ll u n d e rsta n d ; b o th sid e s h a v e th e rig h t to s ubpoena w i tnes s es , and you ca n beti f ther e w as anythi ng thatw as i ncons i s t ent , they w oul d ha ve putthes e otherw i tnes s es on. T hey had the r i ght to d o th a t. A tthatt i m e, the def

ens e o bject ed, as s ert i ng thatthe pr os ecut or ’ s ar gum entamount ed t o a c o m m e n t o n th e d e fe n d a n t’s fa ilu re to te stify an d im p in g e d o n the d e fe n d a n t’s rig h t to re m a in
s i l ent . T he tr i al j udge overrul ed the obj ect i on and i ns truct ed the D i s tr i ctA t t orney t o s t i ck t o the evi dence . T urnercl ai m s t hatt he pr os ecut or ’ s st at ementw as an i m pr opercomm enton T urner ’ s deci s i on nott o t es t i f y. T urnerm ai nt ai ns thatthi s i s s ue s houl d have be en r ai s ed on d i r e c ta p p e a l a n d th a th i s a t t o r n e y o n a p p e a l wa s i n e f f e c t i v e f o rf a i l i n g t o r a i s e th a tc l a i m.

### 13

¶30 . T urner ci t es G r if fin v. Ca lif

o r n ia , 380 U . S. 609, 85 S. C t . 1229 , 14 L . E d. 2d 106 (1 9 6 5 ), G r if

fin v. S ta te, 5 5 7 S o .2 d 5 4 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ), an d o th e r c a s e s w h ic h h o ld th a t a def endant ’ s Fi fth A m endmentr i ghtagai ns ts el f
- i ncr i m i nat i on i s vi ol at ed i f the pr os ecut or m akes a com m entaboutoral l udes t o the def endant ’ s f

ai l ur e t o t es t i f

y attr i al . T hi s C our thas
r epea t edl y hel d thatatt orneys on both s i des ar e al l ow ed w i de l at i tude i n thei rcl os i ng a r g u m e n t s a n d th a tth e r e i s a n o b v i o u s d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n a c o m m e n to n th e d e f e n d a n t 's f ai l ur e t o t es t i f

y and a c om m enton def endant ’ s f

ai l ur e t o puton a cr edi bl e def ens e. U n de rw o o d

v. S ta te , 919 S o. 2d 931, 939- 40 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng Ho w e ll v. S ta te , 860 So. 2d 704, 751- 52 ( M i s s . 2003) . T he pr os ecut or ’ s comm enther e w as a f ai rr es ponse to the d e fe n se ’s c laim th a t th e S tate fa iled to c a ll so m e w itn e ss e s w h o c o u ld h a v e b e e n h e lp fu l to the j ury. A s i n U

nder w ood , the ar gum entdi d nots peci f i cal l y ment i on the def

endantorr ef

er t o hi s f ai l ur e t o t es t i f

y. A s t he cl os i ng ar gum entw as noti m pr oper , the appe l l at e att orney w as n o t re q u ire d to ra ise th a t issu e o n a p p e a l. W e fin d th a t th e a tto rn e y w a s n o t in e ffe c tiv e in fa ilin g to ra is e th is is s u e o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. V . P r e se n ta tio n o f th e les se r -in c lu d e d o ffe n se iss u e o n a p p e a l. ¶ 3 1 . A t tria l, th e d e fe n se o ffe re d ju ry in stru c tio n s o n th e les se r-in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f sim p le
m ur der . T he St at e obj ect ed on the bas i s thatther e w as no evi dent i ary ba s i s f ora f i ndi ng of sim p le m u rd e r o n e ith e r c o u n t. T h e trial c o u rt re fu se d th e in stru c tio n . O n d ire c t ap p e a l, T u rne r arg u ed that the tri al co u rterred in refu sing a sim p le m u rde r i n stru cti o n . T h is C o u rt con si dered t hat i ssue and analyzed the cri t eri a forgivi ng a l esser-i n clud ed o ff ense in stru c tio n . T h e C o u rt fo u n d th a t:

### 14

no err orw as com m i t t ed by the tr i al j udge i n denyi ng the l es s eri ncl uded of f e ns e c ha r ge of

s i mpl e mur de r . The f

a c t s f r om t he r e c or d s i mpl y d o not s uppor tthattheory of

the ca s e. T he t es t i m ony of St ew art- the sa m e t es t i m ony T urner r el i es upo n as the basi s of hi s argum ent forthe l esseri ncluded off ense of s i m pl e murde ri ns truct i on - cl ear l y det ai l s how the i nt entand purpos e of T urneri n t he ea r l y m orni ng hour s of D ece m ber13, 1995, w as t o r ob a s t or e. T hi s t es t i m ony f

r om St ew artas t o i nte ntw as uncontr adi ct ed by any other t est i m ony. T her ef

or e, t aki ng thi s uncontr adi ct ed t es t i m ony as true, i tw as T urner ' s s peci f

i c i nt entthr oughoutthe eve nt s of thos e ear l y morni ng hour s , up t o and i ncl udi ng the t i m es of both m ur der s , t o comm i tarm ed r obbery. Turner , 732 So. 2d at949. ¶3 2 . T u rne r arg u es that h is a tt o rne y w as ineffec ti v e in fail ing to arg u e in the a p p ell an t’ s r epl y br i ef

thatSt ew art ’ s t es t i m ony w as subj ectt o ext ens i ve cr os s - exami nat i on and thatt he t est i m on y w as not unco ntr adict ed. W hetherT urner w as ent i t l ed t o a l esser -i ncluded off ense i ns truct i on has been a ddr es s ed and i s now barr ed f r om f ur thercons i der at i on. M i s s . C ode A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 - 2 1 (2 ); L o c k e tt v. S ta te , 6 1 4 S o . 2 d 8 8 8 , 8 9 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). ¶ 3 3 . T u rn e r n o w a s s e rt s th a t t h is C o u rt w o u ld h a v e r e a c h e d a d iffe re n t re su lt i f h is att orney had pr oper l y addr es s ed i ti n the r epl y br i ef . T he cl ai m , in ess ence , i s thatt he
a tto rn e y sh o u ld h a v e arg u e d in th e rep ly b rie f th a t S tew a rt w a s c ro ss -e x a m in e d e x ten siv e ly
a n d th a t h is te stim o n y w a s n o t “u n c o n tra d icte d .” W e fin d th is c laim to b e w ith o u t m e rit. ¶3 4 . T h is plea reli es o n a fal se p resu m p ti o n , i. e., this C o u rtfail ed to fu ll y rev iew S tew art’s t e s t i mo n y , i n c l u d i n g h i s c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n . Al l t e s t i mo n y wa s r e v i e we d i n d e t a i l . No
co n tr ad ict ion s w ere fou n d then , an d , after a s e c o n d rev iew , w e a g ain find that S tew art’s tes tim o n y w a s u n c o n tra d icte d . T u rn e r allu d e s to n o sp e c ific te stim o n y w h e re S tew a rt sa id anythi ng ot herthan thathe and T urnerpl anned t o r ob a s t or e w i th r i f l es , and thatC urry and

### 15

S t ew artw ere m urdered i n furtherance o f that arm ed robb ery plan. N o l esseri ncluded off ense in s tru c tio n w a s w a rr a n te d . N o a m o u n t o f a rg u m e n t c o u ld c h a n g e th a t f a c t. V I . Evi de nc e of

m i t i ga t i on. ¶35. T urnercl ai m s thathi s a t t orneys f ai l ed t o pr es entan ade quat e ca s e i n the mi t i gat i on p h ase o f his tr ial . T h e d efe n se ca ll ed fou r w itn esse s. T h e p eti ti o n er claim s th at sev era l m o re w i tnes s es s houl d have be en ca l l ed; and thatthe w i tnes s es w ho di d t es t i f y s houl d have be en b e tte r p re p a re d . ¶36. G eneral l y, an att orney' s deci s i on t o cal l cert ai n w i tnes s es and as k cert ai n ques t i ons "f al l s w i thi n the ambi tof tr i al s tr at egy and cann ot gi ve r i s e t o an i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of
cou nsel cl ai m . " B e ll v. S ta te , 879 So. 2d 423, 434 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng J a c kso n v. S ta te , 815 So. 2d 1196, 1200 (M i s s . 2002)) . T her e i s no abs ol ut e r equi r ementt o puton m i t i gat i on w itn esse s, an d the " fail u re to p rese n t a ca se in m it igation d u ri n g the s en tenc ing p h ase o f a capit al tri al i s not, per se, i neff ect i ve assi st ance o f counsel. " W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 722 S o. 2d 447, 450 ( M i s s . 1998) , ci t i ng W ill ia m s v. Ca in , 125 F. 3d 269, 277 ( 5th C i r . 1997) . T he f act th a t an a tto rn e y ’s s tra teg ic c h o ice s d id n o t re su lt i n a g o o d o u tco m e is n o t in a n d o f itse lf def i ni t i ve evi dence of

i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . "The Si xth A m endmentguar ant ees re a so n a b le c o m p e ten c e , n o t p e rfe c t ad v o c a c y ju d g e d w ith th e b e n e fit o f h in d s ig h t." Y arbo rou gh v. G en try , 5 4 0 U . S . 1 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 1 , 4 , 1 5 7 L . E d . 2 d 1 (2 0 0 3 ) (co ll ec ti n g ca ses). ¶ 3 7 . F u rth e r, th is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t: Str i c kland

does notr equi r e couns el t o i nves t i gat e eve ry conce i vabl e l i ne of m i t i gat i ng evi dence no m at t erhow unl i kel y the ef f or tw oul d be t o as s i s tthe defend ant atsent encing. N or does Str i ckland re q u ire d e fe n se c o u n s e l to pr es entm i t i gat i ng ev i dence ats ent enci ng i n every cas e. B oth concl us i ons w o u ld in ter fe re w ith th e “ c o n stitu tio n a lly p ro tec ted in d e p e n d e n c e o f c o u n se l”

### 16

at th e h ea rto f Str i c kl

and , 466 U . S. at689, 104 S. C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 674. W e b a se o u r c o n c lu sio n o n th e m u c h m o re lim ited p rin c ip le th a t “s tra teg ic choi ces m ade a f

t erl es s than compl et e i nves t i gat i on ar e r eas onabl e” onl y t o the ext entthat“ r easonabl e pr of es s i onal j udgm ent s s uppor tthe l i m i t at i ons on i nves t i gat i on. ” Id . , at690- 691, 4 66 U . S . 668, 104 S. C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 674. A deci s i on nott o i nves t i gat e thus “mustbe di re ct l y as s es s ed f or r eas onabl enes s i n al l the ci r cumst ance s . ” I d . a t 6 9 1 , 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 . W i gg ins , 539 U . S. at533, 123 S. C t . 2527. U nder W i gg ins , co u n sel m ay m ak e str ateg ic de cisi o n s to introd u ce , p u rsue o r i g n o re c e rta in e v id e n c e , b u t th e se d e c isio n s m a y a m o u n t to in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e if m a d e b a s e d o n a n in a d e q u a te o r u n re a s o n a b le in v e s tig a tio n . B y ro m v. S ta te , 9 2 7 S o . 2 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 6 -17 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). ¶3 8 . O f the w itn esse s the d efe n se ca ll ed in the p en alty p h ase , three w ere fam il y m em b ers w ho t es t i f

i ed aboutthe di f

f i cul tchi l dhood T urnerhad expe r i ence d. T hei rt es t i m ony i ncl uded the f

ol l ow i ng: ( 1) T urner ’ s f atherw as ki l l ed i n an ac ci dentw hen Turne rw as tw el ve year s ol d; ( 2) T urner ’ s mot herdr ank exce s s i vel y; ( 3) and ( 4) s he and he rs econd hus band phys i cal l y and verbal l y m i s tr eat ed Turne r and his brother , and negl ect ed them badl y; ( 5) T urner ’ s s ui ci de att empt s ; ( 6) hi s di s f i gur ementcaus ed by s hoot i ng hi m s el f i n the j aw ; ( 7) T urnerhad bee n i ns t i tut i onal i zed f orps ychi atr i c pr obl ems on s ever al occa s i ons w i thout benef i t ; ( 8) T urnerhad bee n a l ov i ng ch i l d; ( 9) he had made good gr ades ; and ( 10) he had al w ays bee n k i nd and res pectf ul t o fam i l y m em bers. ¶39. Fi nal l y, the def

ens e cal l ed D r. R odr i go G al vez, a ps ychi atr i s t . D r . G al vez t es t i f i ed thathe ha d r evi ew ed T urner ’ s vol um i nous ps ychi atr i c r ecor ds a nd c oncl uded thatT urnerhad been i nvol unt ar i l y com m i t t ed t o psychi atr i c hospi t al s on thr ee occ as i ons . H e w as di agnos ed as suf fer i ng fr om m aj or depressi on , bo rder l i ne p ers on al i ty d is order and sub st ance a bu se pr obl ems. Prozac w as pr es cr i bed f orthe depr es s i on, butD r . G al vez t es t i f i ed thatt he p e rso n a lity d iso rd e r h a d n e v e r b e e n tre a ted . D r. G a lv e z a ttribu ted T u rn e r’s p ro b lem s to

### 17

T u rne r’s pa ren ts an d to so ciety in g en era l. D r. G alve z o p ined that as a resu lto f T u rne r’s
ra isin g a n d h is p sy c h iatric p ro b lem s, T u rn e r w a s le ft w ith in a d e q u a te “ m o ra l b ra k e s” to c o n tro l h is b e h a v io r. C o u p led w ith a lco h o l an d d ru g u se , the lac k o f “ b ra k e s” led T u rn e r in to seriou s crim es. D r. G alve z testi fi ed that, in h is op inion , T u rne r ne v er g o t th e p sy ch iatri c c are thathe r eal l y neede d. ¶40 . T urner ass ert s that def ense co un sel fai l ed to perf orm m ore than a cur s ory i nves t i gat i on o f T u rn e r’s b a c k g ro u n d p rio r to p re se n tin g th e m iti g a tio n c a se . H o w e v e r, th e re c o rd re v e a ls thatthe def

ens e i nt ervi ew ed numer ous w i tnes s es and r evi ew ed T urner ’ s ext ens i ve medi cal and psyc hi atr i c f

i l es . W e f

i nd no evi dence thatdef ens e couns el ’ s pr e- tr i al i nves t i gat i on w as in su ffic ien t. ¶4 1 . T u rne r has sub m itted a ffi d av it s fr o m nu m ero u s fam il y m em b ers w h o d id n o t t esti fy attr i al . M uch of

t he pr opos ed t est i m on y i n t hos e af f i davi t s i s r epet i t i ve of

w hatw as p r e s e n t e d t o th e j u r y . Th e j u r y r e c e i v e d t e s t i mo n y a b o u tTu rn e r ’ s mo th e r ’ s a l c o h o l p r o b l e ms a n d th e a b u se su ffe re d b y T u rn e r a s a c h ild . F u rth e r te stim o n y a b o u t T u rn e r’s d iffic u lt chi l dhood, hi s s ui ci de att empt s , hi s di s f i gur ement , orthe dea th of hi s fa therw oul d onl y have been cum ulat i ve. W e fi nd that the l aw yers w ere w el l w i thin theirdi scr et i on no tt o call t hese
a d d itio n a l w itn e s s e s . ¶42. A f

t er a r evi ew of the r emai ni ng non- cumu l at i ve t es t i m ony, w e f i nd that T urnerhas f ai l ed t o show any def

i ci ency i n hi s att orneys ’ per f or m ance . C l ai m s thataddi t i onal w i tnes s es s h o u ld h a v e b e e n c a lle d a re d is fa v o re d . See L e a th e rw o o d v S ta te , 473 So . 2d 964 , 97 0 (M i ss. 1985) . T he r ecor d r evea l s thatthe att orneys i nt ervi ew ed many f ami l y m ember s i n addi t i on t o tho s e c a l l e d a ttr i a l . Thos e who wer e d e e med t o be the mos te f f e c t i ve wi t nes s es by

### 18

couns el w er e ca l l ed and t es t i f i ed f orT urner . The deci s i on nott o cal l the r emai ni ng w i tnes s es fa lls w ith in the ran g e o f trial stra teg y , a n d w e fin d tha t th e atto rn e y s w e re n o t in e ffe c tiv e in
m a k in g th a t c h o ic e . ¶ 4 3 . Un d e rth e t o t a l i ty o f th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s h e r e , th e Co u r tf i n d s th a tT u rn e rh a s n o t s h o wn th a t th e a tto rn e y s w e re in e ff e c tiv e . V II . F a ilu r e to o b je c t to a lleg a tio n s o f p r io r b a d a c ts b r o u g h t o u t in cross- exa m i n ati on of m i ti ga ti on w i tnesses . ¶44. T urner ar gues that hi s att orneys w er e i nef f ect i ve i n the pr es ent at i on of the mi t i gat i on case by “op ening t he d oo r” t o ev i den ce of p ri or i nst ances of bad co nd uct. T he S t at e cross exami ned Turne r ’ s m i t i gat i on w i tnes s es , w ho had t es t i f i ed thatTur nerha d be en a good chi l d, b y i n q u i r i n g wh e th e rth e y k n e w th a tT u rn e rh a d a s s a u l t e d h i s mo th e ra n d s t e p f a th e r . On di r ectappea l , thi s C our tf ound t hatT urnerpl ace d hi s charact eri nt o evi dence by cal l i ng w i tnes s es w ho t es t i fi ed thathe had be en a good c hi l d. T he C our tf ound thatthe St at e w as ent i t l ed t o r ebutt hatt es t i m ony by pr es ent i ng evi dence thatT urnerw as the abus erand nott he
a b u s e d , a t le a s t o n a c o u p le o f o c c a s io n s . Tu rner, 732 So. 2d at950. ¶45. T urner m ai ntai ns thath i s at t orneys coul d have pr es ent ed the evi dence of abu se w i tho ut opening the doo r t o the pri or bad a ct s t est i m on y. H e ci t es W o o dw a rdv. S ta te , 635 So. 2d 805 ( M i s s . 1993). I n W oo dw ard , the C our tf

ound thatthe def

endant ’ s att orneys had been i neff

ect i ve in theirpres entat i on of the m i t i gati on case. T he d efense cal l ed a p sychiatri st to tes tify a b o u t W o o d w a rd ’s m e n tal illn e ss . O u t o f fe a r th a t th e y w o u ld o p e n th e d o o r to d a m a g in g c h a ra c ter e v id e n c e , the d e fe n se lim ited th e p sy c h iatris t’s te stim o n y to th e re su lts of m ent al t es t i ng. T he ps ychi atr i s tw as notal l ow ed t o pr ovi de cr i t i cal i nf or m at i on about

### 19

W oodw ar d’ s hi s t ory w hi ch appa r ent l y contr i but ed t o hi s m ent al pr obl ems w hi ch had be en r evea l ed i n the ps ychi atr i s t ’ s exami nat i on of W oodw ar d. T he C ourthel d thatcouns el had im p ro p e rl y lim ite d th e te s tim o n y a n d th a t W o o d w a rd h a d b e e n p re ju d ic e d a s a re s u lt. ¶ 4 6 . T u rn e r c laim s th a t W oo dw ard is in d is tin g u is h a b le . W e fi n d o th e rw is e . W oo dw ard hol ds thatthe att orneys w ho cal l ed the ps ychi atr i s ts hould have a l l ow ed hi m t o gi ve a compl et e pi ctur e of

the r es ul t s of

hi s exam i nat i on of

the def endanti ncl udi ng cr i t i cal backgr ound hi s t ory. T hatfa i l ur e, coupl ed w i th an i nadequa t e cl os i ng ar gum entthatf ai l ed to ad d ress the statu tory m it igating fac tors, am o u n ted to ineffec ti v e a ssist a n c e . H e re, th ere i s no all egati on that Tu rner ’s gen eral back groun d w as notprovi ded t o the j ury. T he d efense cal l ed the f

ami l y m ember s and D r . G al vez w ho t es t i f i ed ext ens i vel y aboutT urner ’ s hi s t or y. F u rt h e r, t h e re is n o c la im in v o lv in g in a d e q u a te c lo s in g a rg u m e n t. ¶47. T urner ar gues that couns el coul d have put on the go od charac t er evi dence w i thout risk in g c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n a b o u t th e b a d c h a ra c ter p ro o f. H e o ffe rs n o a u th o rity to e x p lain how couns el coul d have a ccompl i s hed that . O n one ha nd, Tur nerc l ai m s thathi s att or neys sh o u ld h a v e p u t o n m o re c h a ra c ter e v id e n c e w itn e ss e s, y e t o n th e o th e r, h e a rg u e s th a t h is att orneys w er e i nef

f ect i ve i n f

ai l i ng t o l i m i tchar act erevi dence , s o as t o pr ecl ude openi ng the d o o r t o the b ad ac ts qu esti o n ing . W e find n o ev iden ce in the re c o rd th at co u n sel w ere i nef f ect i ve i n t hei rpr es ent at i on of the ca s e i n m i t i gat i on. V I I I . F ai l ure t o m ove f or a m i s t ri al w hen t he di s t ri ct at t orney ques t i oned m it iga ti o n w it n esse s a b o u t all eg ed b a d co n d u ct o f the d efe n d a n t. ¶48. T urnerm ai nt ai ns t hathi s att orneys s houl d have r eques t ed a mi s tr i al w hen the di s tr i ct
a tto rn e y a sk e d d e fe n se w itn e ss e s if th e y w e re a w a re o f alle g a tio n s th a t T u rn e r h a d b e a ten h is

### 20

m otherand thr eat ened hi s s t epf ather . T urnerar gues t hatt he ques t i oni ng w as i m pr operi n t hat the St at e neve rof

f er ed pr oof

t hatt he dam agi ng al l egat i ons w er e t rue. H e cl ai m s t hatcouns el
w er e i nef

f ect i ve i n fa i l i ng t o ci t e Flo w e rs v. S ta te , 7 7 3 S o . 2 d 3 0 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e S tate poi nt s outthatthe Flow ers d eci si on w as handed dow n af t erT urner ’ s cas e w as deci ded by thi s C our t . C i t i ng Flow ers , ther ef or e, w oul d have be en i m pos s i bl e. ¶4 9 . W e a g ain n o te th at th is C o u rtde altw ith th e sam e issue on direct ap p ea l. T h e C o u rt f ound thatT urnerhad puthi s char act eri nt o pl ay by i ntr oduci ng evi dence thathe w as a good
a n d n o rm a l ch ild . T h e C o u rt fo u n d th a t th e S tate w a s a u th o riz e d to re b u t th a t tes tim o n y w ith
e v id e n c e o f b a d c o n d u c t. Turner , 732 So. 2d at950. A s the C our thas al r eady f ound thatt he ques t i ons w er e perm i s s i bl e, T urnercannotshow t hathi s at t orneys w er e i nef f ect i ve i n f

ai l i ng t o s eek a m i s tr i al on t hati s s ue. IX . T h e d ea th sen ten ce im p o sed b y th e ju ry w a s b a sed in p a rt o n fac ts not s peci f

i cal l y f ound by t he j ury. ¶ 5 0 . T h e S tate c h o se to p re se n t to th e ju ry o n e a g g ra v a tin g f a c to r ju s tif

y in g th e d e a th p en alty . T h e S tat e a sk ed the ju ry to return a se n tenc e o f de ath if i t f o u n d that the m u rde rs w er e comm i t t ed f

orpe cuni ary ga i n a nd i f the aggr avat i ng f

act or s outw ei ghed the evi dence i n m i t i gat i on. T he St at e di d notas k thatthe j ury be i ns truct ed on others t atut ory aggr avat i ng f act or . H ow ever , the St at e di d ar gue i n i t s cl os i ng s t at ementi n the pena l ty phas e thatt he ki l l i ngs w ere “brut al and grues om e”. T urnerar gues thatthe St at e’ s ar gum entaboutthe b rutali ty o f th e c ri m e all o w ed the jury to return it s v erd icto n e v iden ce o u tsi d e the p ec u n iary gai n agg ravat i ng fa ct or . T urnercl ai m s thatthe s ent enci ng w as ther ef or e bas ed on pr oof out s i de thatf

ound by the j ury a nd thatthe s ent ence mustbe voi ded underthe U ni t ed St at es

### 21

Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i ons i n A ppr endiv. N

ew Jers ey , 530 U . S . 4 66 , 120 S. C t2348, 147 L .E d .2 d 4 3 5 (2 0 0 0 ); Ring v. Ari z ona , 5 36 U. S. 5 84 , 1 22 S. Ct . 2 42 8, 1 53 L. Ed. 2d 556 ( 2002) ; and B lakeley v. W as hington , 54 2 U . S . 29 6 , 12 4 S . C t. 25 3 1 , 1 5 9 L . E d . 2 d 4 0 3 (20 0 4 ). T u rn e r’s d ire c t ap p e a l w a s d e c id e d in 1 9 9 9 b e fo re th e d e c isio n s in A ppr endi , Ringand B lakeley w er e handed dow n. T he St at e ar gues thatno f eder al courthas appl i ed A ppr endi
a n d its p ro g e n y re tro a c tiv e ly . W e c o n c lu d e th a t A ppr endi , R ing and B lakel y d o n o t ap p ly h e re . ¶5 1 . T u rne r also claim s that the State’s arg u m en ts ab o u t the bru tal ity o f the offen se w ere pr ohi bi t ed by var i ous M i s s i s s i ppi d eci si ons . See W a lk e r v . S ta te , 74 0 S o. 2d 87 3 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 ); B a lfo u r v . S ta te , 5 98 S o. 2d 731 ( M i s s . 1992) . T hi s i s s ue w as deci ded on di r ect appea l . T he C our tdet erm i ned thatthe St at e w as ent i t l ed t o “pr es entthe det ai l ed ci r cumst ance s of

the murde rcomm i t t ed by the def endant ” and thatt he S t at e coul d “ar gue thes e f act s and dr aw i nf

er ence s f r om the f act s i n or dert o pr ove thatTur neractual l y ki l l ed,
a tte m p te d to k ill, in te n d e d th e k illin g ta k e p la c e o r th a t d e a d ly fo rc e w a s c o n te m p la te d .” Tu rner, 7 3 2 S o .2 d a t 9 5 5 -5 6 . A c c o rd in g ly , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. X . P r o p o r tio n a lity r e v iew in th e d ire c t a p p e a l. ¶52. T urner cl ai m s that thi s C our t ’ s r evi ew of the pr opor t i onal i ty of the death s ent ence on di r ectappea l w as i nadequa t e. H e cl ai m s thatf ew o t her M i s s i s s i ppi death penal ty cas es i nvol ve ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch the j ury w as as ked t o f i nd onl y one s t atut ory aggr avat i ng f act or . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 105( 3) r equi r es thi s C our tt o r evi ew the pr opor t i onal i ty of
e a c h d e a th se n ten c e b e fo re tha t se n ten c e ca n b e a ff ir m e d . In th e d ir ec t app ea l, this C o u rt con du ct ed the st atutor i l y m and at ed p roport i on al i ty revi ew and found as f oll ow s:

### 22

I tdoes notappea rthatT urner ’ s death s ent ence w as i m po s ed underthe in flu e n c e o f p a ss io n , p re ju d ice o r a n y o th e r a rb itrar y fa c to r. N e ith e r d o e s it a p p e a r, u p o n c o m p a riso n to o th e r fa c tu a lly sim ilar c a se s w h e re th e d e a th se n te n c e w a s im p o se d , tha t th e se n ten c e o f d e a th is d isp ro p o rtio n a te in th is c a se . H a v in g g iv e n in d iv id u a lize d c o n sid e ra tio n to T u rn e r a n d th e c rim e s in th e p re se n t ca se , this C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t th e re is n o th in g a b o u t T u rn e r o r h is c rim e s th a t w o u ld m a k e the d e a th p e n a lty e x c e ss iv e o r d isp ro p o rtio n a te in th is c a s e . Turner , 732 So. 2d at956. T o the ext entthatT urner asks thi s C our tt o anal yze the pr opor t i onal i ty of

the s ent ence of

death agai n, t he C our tfi nds t hatt hati s s ue has al r eady be en deci ded and i s pr ocedur al l y ba r r ed. I n pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef pr ocee di ngs , “ [ t ] he doctr i ne of
r es j udi cat a s hal l appl y t o al l i s s ues , both f actual and l egal , deci ded attr i al an d on di r ect appea l . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 21. N otw i ths t andi ng t he pr ocedur al bar , the C our tonce a g a i n f i n d s th a tth e s e n t e n c e i mp o s e d i s n o td i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e . I n h i s c o u r s e o f r o b b i n g two st ores, T urner ki l l ed tw o m en w i tho ut provo cat i on . B oth m en w ere shot i n the h ead at cl ose ra n g e d u rin g ro b b e rie s. T h e ju ry ’s fin d in g th a t th e m u rd e rs w e re d o n e fo r p e c u n iar y g a in is unequi vocal . A j ury, pr oper l y i ns truct ed af t erhear i ng the evi dence , f r eel y det erm i ned that T urner ’ s puni s hm ents houl d be death. A r evi ew of r el evantSupr eme C our tdeci s i ons i n ot her capi t al cas es conf

i r m s thatthe puni s hm enther e i s pr opor t i onat e.

CO NC L US I ON ¶53 . T urner m urdered E dd i e B rooks a nd E veret tC urry du ri ng the co urse of tw o robberi es. A f t erc on s i de r i ng the e vi de nc e a ga i ns thi m a nd the c ompe t i ng mi t i ga t i ng a nd a gg r a va t i ng f act or s , a j ury det erm i ned thathe s houl d be putt o death. T he C our tf i nds no err orr equi r i ng al t er at i on of

thatj udgm ent . T urneris tw i ce gui l ty of capi t al m ur der . H e has not demonstr at ed any de f

i ci entper f

or m ance by hi s tr i al orappel l at e att orneys . T he C our tf i nds

### 23

th a t T u rn e r is n o t en tit led to s e e k p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief. T h e re fo re , T u rn e r’s re q u e st fo r p o stc o n v ic tio n re lie f i s d e n ie d . ¶ 5 4 . TH E P ET I TIO N FO R PO ST- C O N V I C TI O N R ELI EF AN D TH E P R O SE P ET I TI ON F OR P OS T- CONVI CT I ON RE LI EF ARE DE NI ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND C OBB , P . J J . , EA S LE Y, DI AZ , CARL S ON, G R A V E S A N D D I C K I N S O N , J J ., C O N C U R .