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 8 - KA- 0 0 4 0 9 - S CT FERNANDO M

ART I NEZ P ARKER a

/ k / a TAL
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 08/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. KE NNE T H L
. T HOMAS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: COAHO M A COUN TY 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 : DE I RD RE M c CR OR Y DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : LAU REN CE Y
. M ELLEN NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY DI S P OS I T I ON: AF F I RMED ; RE M ANDE D F OR R E S E N T E N C IN G A S T O C O U N T II - 03/ 25/ 2010 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 W A L L E R , C . J. , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. F e rn a n d o M a rtin e z P a rk e r w a s in d icte d b y a g ra n d ju ry o f C o a h o m a C o u n ty in N ovember2004 f

orpos s es s i on of

a f i r earm o n edu cat i onal pr operty i n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi Code Sect i on 97- 37- 17, f orm ur derof

J arvi s M oor e i n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 93-3- 19, and foraggr avat ed as s aul tof J us t i n M oor e i n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 7( 2) ( b)
. Par kerw as tr i ed and c onvi ct ed of all thr ee c har ges . T he H o n o ra b le K e n n e th T h o m a s s e n ten c e d P a rk e r to life w ith o u t p a ro le fo r th e m u rd e r o f Ja rv isTh e re co rd i s in co ns ist ent re gardingthi s f rie nd ’s n am e. Th e S tat e re fers t o this f rie nd as 1 St ev e H arriso n in

its op en ingstatement, b ut t wo w itn ess es, Ketrick

B uc k an d Jus tin

Mo ore , s tat ed that th e f rie nd ’s n am e w as Ken dri ck Harri s. 

### 2 M oor e, t hr ee yea r s forposs es s i on of a f i r earm on educa t i onal prope r ty, and fi f t een ye ar s f

or aggr avat ed as s aul tof

J us t i n M oor e. A ggr i eved, P arkerappea l s hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence .

FACTS ¶2
. O n O ct ober26, 20 04 , f ou rCoah oma Comm un i ty Col l e ge s tud e nt s , J us t i n M oor e, J a r v i s M o o r e , Ke tr i c k Bu c k , a n d J o h n J a mi s o n , wa l k e d a c r o s s c a mpu s f r o m th e i rd o r m, F ri end s H al l , t o M oo re H al l t o g eta video gam e fr om theirfr i end , K end ri ck H arr i s. 1 K en d ri ck li v ed o n the b o tt o m floo r o f M o o re H all
. W h en thes e fo u r m en arrived at M o o re H al l , a verbal al t er cat i on began betw een them and a gr oup of s tudent s congr egat i ng on the
s econd- f l oorbal cony. T he gr oup on the s econd f l oori ncl uded V i ncentC r os s , J onathan H a n e y , a n d F e rn a n d o P a rk e r. ¶3
. Ju sti n M o o re, B u ck , an d H an ey test if ied at tr ial that the v erb al alt e rc a tio n q u ick ly turned i nt o a phys i cal al t er cat i on, af t er w hich Par kerpul l ed outa gun and be gan s hoot i ng. J us t i n M oor e and B uck al s o t es t i f i ed t hatP arkershotand ki l l ed Ja r vi s M oor e and s hotand i nj ur ed J us t i n M oor e. B oth J us t i n M oor e and Buck t es t i f i ed thatP arke rai m ed di r ect l y at J arvi s M oor e. H aney hi d i n a dorm r oom dur i ng the actual s hoot i ng, buthe t es t i f i ed t o s eei ng Par kerw i th the gun i m m edi at el y af t erthe s hoot i ng cea s ed. ¶4. A ccor di ng t o l aw enf or cement t es t i m ony, of

f i cer s arr es t ed Par ker the f ol l ow i ng day. Par kergave a w r i t t en s t at ementt o pol i ce af t erw ai vi ng hi s r i ght s . Par ker ’ s s t at ement , dat ed O ct ob er 27, 20 04 , reads as f oll ow s:

### 3

I h a v e b e e n g o in g to s c h o o l a t C o a h o m a C o m m u n ity C o lle g e fo r 2 y e a rs . I h a v e liv e d in th e M o o re B u il d in g th e w h o le tim e I h a v e b e e n in s c h o o l. I s t art ed havi ng pr obl ems w i th thes e guys abouta w eek ago. I onl y know one guy’ s ni ckname w hi ch i s “J St r eel ”. T her e ar e f ourother guy s bu tI do not k n o w t h e i rn a me s . I wa s i n th e d o r ms , l a y i n g o n th e b e n c h o u t s i d e my bedr oom w hen I hear d cus s i ng and yel l i ng out s i de on the bal cony. I w al ked t o the door , w hi ch w as open, and I got pun ched i n the f ace . J St r eel and anotherguy s t art ed punchi ng me and I punc hed them back. I ha d been c a rry i n g a . 3 8 0 p i s t o l i n my p o c k e tf o ra b o u ta we e k , a n d i tf e l l o u to f

my pocket
. I s aw J Str eel a nd the guy a nd I ha d be en f i ght i ng punchi ng V i ncent C r os s , a nd I pi cked up the gun, ai m ed atthe guy I had bee n f i ght i ng, and s hot atl eas tf i ve t i m es . I di d nots ee a ny otherw eapons , onl y peopl e thr ow i ng punches
. I s hotthe guy t o gethi m of f m e. E verybody s t art ed runni ng, and I r an dow n the s t ai rs and behi nd the dorm bui l di ng. I thr ew the gun i nt o the w oods , hopi ng i tw oul d l and i n the w at er . I ra n back t o m y r oom , and l ocked m ys el f i n the cl os etbeca us e I w as s car ed the pol i ce w oul d c om e and I di d not k n o w wh a tth e y wo u l d d o . I s t a y e d i n t h e c l o s e ta l o n g t i me u n t i l I c a l l e d my m other
. I t ol d herw hathappene d, and s he t old m e to turn m ys el f i n t o the pol i ce. I came outthe doorand di d w hatthe of f i cer s t ol d m e t o do. T he s t at ementw as s i gned by Parkera nd w i tnes s ed by then- O f f i cerJ ohn M ar s h of

t he M i s s i s s i ppi B ur eau of

I nves t i gat i on. M ar s h t es t i f i ed att r i al and i dent i f

i ed t he st at ementas h av ing b ee n m ad e b y P ark er. ¶ 5
. Ac c o r d i n g t o t r i a l t e s t i mo n y , th e g u n u s e d a tth e s h o o t i n g wa s n e v e rf o u n d
. An A l cohol T obacc o and Fi r earm s tr ace , how ever , re veal ed thatPar kerow ned a Cobra FS380 (o r a . 3 8 0 cali b er pistol), w h ich o ffi ce rs i d en ti fi ed as th e sam e typ e o f w ea p o n use d t o k ill J arvi s M oor e. T he trace do cum ental s o w as ent er ed i nt o evi dence
. Fur ther , M i s s i s s i ppi B ur eau of

I nves t i gat i on O f

f i cerA l l en T hom ps on t es t i f i ed t o fi ndi ng a box of

. 380 cartr i dges i n Par ker ’ s dor m r oom , and K en G i l l , the f or ens i c l ab t echni ci an, t es t i f i ed t o fi ndi ng s i x . 380
ca li b er sh ell ca sing s at th e sc en e. P ark er d id n o t t esti fy o n h is ow n b eh alf. CO UR S E OF P RO CE E DI NG S

### 4

¶6. A gr and j ury r eturned an i ndi ctm enton N ovember30, 2004, c har gi ng Par kerw i th: ( 1) pos s es s i on of

a fi r earm on educa t i onal property, (2) t he m ur derof J arvi s M oor e, and (3) t he aggr avat e d a s s a ul tof

J us t i n M oo r e . The Coah oma Cou nty Ci r c ui tCour ta pp oi nt e d a n att orney f

orPar kerand s ett he tr i al dat e f orD ece m ber20, 2004. T he cas e w as cont i nued f i ve t i m es overthe nextt hr ee yea r s as di f f er entat t orneys w er e appoi nt ed, r et ai ned, w i thdr aw n,
a n d re a p p o in ted , all w h ile P a rk e r’s sta tu s flu c tu a ted b e tw e e n in d ig e n t an d n o n -in d ig e n t. ¶7
. Par kerf

i r s tf i l ed a M ot i on f

orAppoi ntmento f

At t orne y on Dec e mber7, 2004,
sw e a rin g th a t h e h a d in su ffic ien t fu n d s to e m p lo y a n a tto rn e y . T h e c o u rt a p p o in ted D a v id T i s del l , a l i cens ed and pr act i ci ng M i s s i s s i ppi att orney, t o r epr es entPar ker
. O n February 1, 2005, T i s del l f

i l ed a M ot i on t o W i thdr aw beca us e Parkerhad r et ai ned att orney M i chae l R o b in so n o f S m ith , R u sh in g , C o tto n & R o b in so n law firm to re p re se n t h im a t trial. R o b inso n fi led a M o ti o n to W ith d raw o n M ay 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , d u e to h ea lth rea so n s. T h e c o u rt d e n ied th is re q u e st. T h e c o u rt fu rth e r n o ted th a t th e firm w o u ld n o t b e re liev e d o f its
o b li g ati o n , tho u g h itw o u ld en tert ain a n o ther req u est sh o u ld P ark er retain a d if feren t l aw y er. R o b in so n fil e d a M o tio n to R e c o n sid e r o r in th e a ltern a tiv e a M o tio n to W ith d ra w o n e m o n th l at er , bas ed agai n on R obi ns on’ s det er i or at i ng heal th, the i nabi l i ty of the f i r m ’ s ot her att orneys t o r epr es entP arkerdue t o sche dul i ng conf l i ct s , and t he f

actthatPar kerhad agr eed to p ay the firm $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 for rep rese n tat ion , b u t ha d o n ly p aid $ 2 , 1 0 0 to d ate. T h e c o u rt d e n ied th e M o tio n to R e c o n sid e r, b u t g ra n ted R o b in so n ’s M o tio n to W ith d ra w d u e to Par ker ’ s f

a i l ur e t o p a y. H oweve r , the c ou rtor de r e d the f i r m t o r e f

un d Pa r ke r ’ s $2 , 100,
w h ic h P a rk e r c o u ld u s e to o b ta in th e a tto rn e y o f h is c h o ic e .

### 5

¶8. T he court al s o r ef us ed t o appoi nt Par ker another att orney. N everthel es s , on J ul y 15, 2 0 0 5 , the trial c o u rt a u th o riz e d P a rk e r to p ro c e e d in fo rm a p a u p e ris a n d re a p p o in ted T isd e ll t o r epr es entPar ker
. O n February 14, 2006, J udg e L ar ry L ew i s conduct ed a j ury tr i al t hat
e n d e d in a m istria l. ¶9. O n February 22, 2006, Ti s del l agai n w i thdr ew due t o a conf l i ctof i nt er es tw i th one
o f th e S tat e’s p o tential w itn esse s, an d A ll an D
. S h ac k leford w as a p p o inted as P ark er’s att orney. Shackl ef

or d cont i nued t o r epr es entPar kerthr ough the tr i al , w hi ch f i nal l y began on D ece m ber5 , 2007. T he St at e’ s evi dence i ncl uded eye w i tnes s es , l aw enf or cement , and f o r e n s i c t e s t i mo n y , a s we l l a s p h o t o g r a p h s o f p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e r e c o v e r e d f r o m th e c r i me
s c e n e . T h e a c tu a l g u n w a s n o t a d m itte d in to e v id e n c e , b e c a u s e it w a s n e v e r r e c o v e re d
. ¶1 0
. A ft er the S tat e re sted , the d efe n se m o v ed for a d ir ec ted v e rd ict, b u t the tr ial co u rt deni ed thi s m ot i on. Parker ’ s tr i al couns el then r es t ed w i thoutm aki ng an openi ng s t at ement I n f act , Par ker ’ s couns el di d notcal l a s i ngl e w i tnes s t o the s t and ( Par kers t at ed attr i al that he chos e nott o t es t i f

y)
. I n hi s s um m at i on, Par ker ’s tr i al couns el admi t t ed t o countone, f i r earm pos s es s i on, butcl ai m ed thatf ur thert es t i m ony w as notneede d f orthe otherchar ges of m urder and ag gravat ed assaultbecause the S t at e had no tm eti t s bu rden of proof f or these
c h a rg e s . ¶11. T he tr i al j udge then metw i th couns el r egar di ng j ury i ns truct i ons . T he def ens e m oved fo r th e in c lu sio n o f m a n sla u g h ter a n d s e lf-d e fe n se in stru c tio n s; th e ju d g e h e a rd a rg u m e n ts
r egar di ng thes e tw o i ns truct i ons . B as ed onl y on Par ker ’ s s t at ement , the t r i al j udge al l ow ed thes e i ns truct i ons . Par ker ’ s tr i al c ouns el a gai n moved f ordi r ect ed ver di ct , w hi ch the t ri al
courtdeni ed.

### 6

¶12. T he tr i al concl uded on D ece m ber 7, 2007, w i th the j ury r eturni ng gui l ty ver di ct s f or fi rea rm p o sses sion , m u rde r, a n d a g g rav ated a ssau lt
. Ju d g e K en n eth L
. T h o m as h eld P ark er’s
s ent enci ng hear i ng on February 8, 2008. J udge Thom as s ent ence d Par kert o thr ee ye ar s and a $1, 000 f

i ne f orf i r earm pos s es s i on, l i f

e w i thoutpar ol e f

orm ur der , and f

i f t een ye ar s f

or ag g rav ated assa u lt
. P ark er w as re m an d ed to the cu stod y o f th e C o ah o m a C o u n ty S h eriff’s D epart m entt o be tr ans por t ed t o the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons. P arker ’ s t r i al
couns el di d notfi l e a m ot i on fora new t r i al or j udgm entnot w i ths t andi ng t he ver di ct . Par ker appea l s , and as ks thatthi s C our tr ever s e the tr i al co urtor , i n the al t ernat i ve, r emand f or
r es ent enci ng. A N A L Y S IS ¶ 1 3
. P a rk e r a ss e rts th e fo llo w in g six e rro rs o n a p p e a l: I. W h eth er th e T rial C o u rt Ill eg a ll y Im p o sed a S en ten ce o f L if e W i t hout Par ol e f

or Par ke r ’ s M ur de r C onv i c t i on. I I . W het her t he T ri al C ourt Sub j ect ed P arke r t o D oubl e Jeopardy. I I I . W het her t he T ri al C ourt E rre d by F ai l i ng t o O rder a C om pet ency H eari ng. I V . W het her t he T ri al C ourt Erred by D enyi ng P arke r’ s M ot i ons f or D irec ted V er d ict. V . W hether P arke r’ s T ri al C ounselR endered I nef f ect i ve A s s i s t ance o f C o u n se l. V I . W het her P arke r I s E nt i t l ed t o R el i ef B as ed on C um ul at i ve E rror . DI S CU S S I ON ¶14. E xcept f

or the deni al of the m ot i on f or di r ect ed ver di ct , al l i ssues ar e r ai s ed f ort he f i r s tt i m e on appe al
. G ener al l y, a party w ho fai l s t o m ake a cont empora neous obj ect i on at

### 7

trial m u st re ly o n p lain e rro r to ra ise th e iss u e o n a p p e a l, be c a u se o th e rw ise it i s p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d
. W

a lk e r v . S ta te , 913 So. 2d 198, 216 (M i ss . 2005)
. Pl ai n err orexi s t s w her e s uch
err ora f f ect s the def

endant ’ s s ubs t ant i ve/ f

undament al r i ght s , e ven though no obj ect i on w as
m a d e a t trial. T h u s, w h e re P a rk e r’s su b sta n tiv e a n d fu n d a m e n ta l r ig h ts a re a ffe c ted , this C o u rt w ill a p p ly th e p la in -e rr o r d o c tr in e in re v ie w in g th e a lle g e d e rr o rs . I . W het her t he T ri al C ourt I m pose d an Il l egal Sent ence. ¶15
. O n app eal , Parker argues that the t ri al courtil lega ll y im p o sed a se n tenc e o f li fe i m pr i s onm entw i thoutpar ol e f orthe murde rc onvi ct i on. T hi s Courta gr ees w i th Parkeron this assign m e n t o f e rror, an d fi n d s tha t tri al co u rtil lega ll y sen tenc ed P ark er to li fe i m pr i s onm entw i thoutpa r ol e. T he tr i al c our ts houl d have s ent ence d Par kert o no m or e than lif e im p ri s o n m e n t. ¶16
. M i ssi ssi pp i C od e S ect i on 97 -3- 21 st at es: E v ery pe rson w h o sh all b e c o n v ict ed o f m urder sh all b e se n tenc ed b y the c o u rt t o im p ris o n m e n t fo r life i n t he St at e Peni t ent i ary. E v ery p erso n w h o sh all b e c o n v ict ed o f cap i tal m urder s hal l be s ent ence d ( a) to d ea th; ( b ) t o im p ri so n m en t f o r lif e in th e S ta te P e n iten tia ry w ith o u t p a ro le ; or( c) t o i m pr i s onm entf orl i f e i n t he St at e Peni t ent i ary w i th el i gi bi l i ty f or p aro le as p rov ided in S ec ti o n 4 7 -7-(1 )(f ). M i s s . C ode. A nn. § 97- 3- 21 ( R ev. 2006) ( emphasi s added)
. Par kerw as i ndi ct ed and convi ct ed of

del i ber at e-des i gn m ur derpur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 19. Sect i on 97- 3- 21 perm i t t ed the tr i al courtt o i m pos e a s ent ence of onl y i m pr i s onm entf

orl i f e. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3 -2 1 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e tri al co u rtim p o sed a se n tenc e o f l if e i m pr i s onm entw i thoutpar ol e, w hi ch exce eded the st atut ory m axi m um . T her ef or e, w e f i ndThe statute defines “n onvi ol ent crime” to mean “ a felony othe r than homicide , robbery, 2 manslaughter, sex cri mes, arson, burglary of an occupied dwelli ng, aggravated a ssault, ki dnapping, felonious abuse of vulnerable adults , felonies with enhanced penalt ies, the sa le or manufacture of a contr ol le d substance underthe Uniform Controlled Substances Law, felony chil d abuse, or expl oi tati onor any c rime under Section 97-5- 33 or Section 97- 5-39(2) or 97- 5-39(1)(b) , 97-5- 39(1)( c) o r a violati on of Section 63-11-30(5) .” Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-3- (1)(g)( Rev. 2004) (em ph asi s adde d). 

### 8 thatPar kers houl d be r es ent ence d i n acc or dance w i th M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 93- 3- 21 on hi s m ur derconvi ct i on onl y. ¶ 1 7
. A d d iti o n a lly , w e tak e th is o p p o rtu n ity to a d d re ss th e a rg u m e n t p u t fo rth b y th e S tate thatPar ker ’ s s ent ence w as l egal unde rM i s s i s s i ppi Code Sect i on 47- 7- 3. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode S e c tio n 4 7 -7 -3 p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: N o per s on s hal l be el i gi bl e f orpar ol e w ho i s convi ct ed orw hos e s us pended s ent ence i s r evoked a f

t erJ une 30, 1995, exce ptthatan of f enderconvi ct ed of onl y nonvi ol entcr i m es af t erJ une 30, 1995, m ay be e l i gibl e forpar ol e i f the of f enderm eet s the r equi r ement s i n s ubs ect i on ( 1) and thi s par agr aph. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 4 7 -7 -3 (1 )( g ) (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a s in terp re ted th is 2
s t atut e t o m ean that“M i s s i s s i ppi has abol i s hed par ol e for cr i m es occurr i ng af t erJ une 30, 1995, pur s uantt o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 47- 7- 3( 1) ( g) ( R ev. 1993 & Supp. 19 98 ) [
. ] ” W ade v. S ta te , 7 2 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 7 , 1 0 0 7 -08 (M iss. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). ¶18. Sect i on 47- 7- 3 a ppl i es onl y t o the i nt ernal ope r at i ng pr ocedur es of the D epart m ent of C orr ect i ons and the pr i s ons and does notaf f ecta j udge’ s s ent enci ng prer ogat i ve undert he
cr i m i nal s t atut es . T hus , the C our tof A ppeal s ’ i nt erpr et at i on of Sect i on 47- 7- 3 i s i ncorr ect beca us e the s t atut e does not“abol i s h par ol e. ” See W ade , 7 2 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 0 7 -0 8
. I I . W het her t he T ri al C ourt Sub j ect ed P arke r t o D oubl e Jeopardy.

### 9

¶1 9. Par kerar gu e s tha tthe tr i a l cour ter r ed by s ubj ect i ng hi m t o doubl e j eopar dy. Speci f i cal l y, Par kercl ai m s thathe w as convi ct ed of capi t al m ur deri ns t ead of del i ber at edes i gn m ur de r . Pa r ke rf urthe ra r gu e s tha tc a pi t a l mur de ra nd po s s e s s i on of a f i r e a r m on educa t i onal pr operty hav e t he s ame el ement s , and thatf i r earm pos s es s i on on educa t i onal p ro p e rty is a les se r-in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f ca p ital m u rd e r. T h is C o u rt rev iew s a cla im o f d o u b le je o p a rd y d e n o v o . B o

y d v. S ta te , 9 7 7 S o . 2 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 4 (M is s . 2 0 0 8 ). ¶20. T he Fi f

th A m endment pr ovi des that no per s on s hal l be “s ubj ect f or the s ame of

f ence t o be tw i ce puti n j eopar dy of l i f e orl i m b. ” U .S . C o n st. a m e n d . V ; D e e d s v . S ta te , W L 4350783, at* 2 (M i s s . D ec. 3, 2009). “Si m i l ar l y, S ect i on 22 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on of 1890 pr ovi des that‘ no per s on’ s l i f e orl i bert y shal l be tw i ce pl ace d i n j eopar dy f ort he
s ame of f ens e; butther e mustbe an actual acqui t t al or convi ct i on on the m er i t s t o baranother p ro se c u tio n .’” M iss . C o n st. a rt. 3 , § 2 2 ; id
. at*2. ¶21
. In the inst ant appeal, P arkerci t es E dw a rds v . S ta te , 73 7 S o . 2 d 2 7 5 , 3 2 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ), t o s uppor thi s pos i t i on t hatpos s es s i on of a f i r earm on educa t i onal pr operty w as the under l yi ng f

el ony i n the capi t al
- m ur derchar ge and thus the gr ounds forhi s doubl e- j eopar dy cl ai m . T he def

endanti n E dw ar ds w a s c h a rg e d w ith tw o c o u n ts o f c a p ital m u rd e r w h ile
e n g a g e d in th e c o m m is s io n o f a n a rm e d r o b b e ry , a s w e ll a s o n e c o u n t o f a rm e d ro b b e ry . I d. at284. T hi s C our thel d thati tw as doubl e j eopar dy t o convi ctthe def endantof both capi t al
m ur derw i th a r m ed r obbery a s the under l yi ng of f ens e and a r m ed r obbery, and r ever s ed the
a rm e d -r o b b e ry c o n v ic tio n . I d. at321. ¶ 2 2
. Th e p r e s e n tc a s e i s e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m E dw ar ds
. Par ker ’ s i ndi ctm entchar ged hi m w i th one c ountof

de l i ber at e- des i gn murde rpur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3-

### 10

1 9 , as w ell as on e co u n t o f po sses sion of a fi rea rm on ed u ca ti o n al pro p erty p u rsu a n t to M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97-37- 17. Sect i on 97-3- 19( 1) ( a) def i nes m ur der , i n part , as “the k il li n g o f a hu m an be ing w ith o u t the a u tho ri ty of l aw b y an y m ea n s o r i n an y m an n er sh a ll be m ur deri n the f

ol l ow i ng cas es : ( a) [ w ] hen done w i th del i ber at e des ign to e ffe c t th e d e a th of the per s on ki l l ed, orof

a ny human bei ng. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 19( 1) ( a) ( R ev. 2006) ( emphasi s added). T he el ement s of f i r earm pos s es s i on on educa t i onal pr operty i ncl ude po sses si ng or carryi ng a gu n, either op enly or co ncealed, o n a co m m un i ty co l l ege ca m pu s.

### Mis si ss ippiCode Se ction 97- 37-17 provide s, spe ci fi ca lly: 3 ( 1) ( a) “Educat i onal pr operty" s hal l m ean a ny publ i c orpr i vat e s chool bui l di ng or bus , publ i c orpr i vat e s chool campus, gr ounds , r ecr eat i onal ar ea, athl et i c f

i el d, orotherproperty ow ned, us ed oroper at ed by any l ocal s chool bo ard, school , col l ege oruni ver s i ty boar d of trus t ees , or di r ect or s f

orthe admi ni s tr at i on of any publi c o r pr i vat e educ at i onal i ns t i tut i on ordur i ng a s chool
- r el at ed ac t i vi ty, and s hal l i ncl ude the fac i l i t i es and pr operty of the O akl ey and Col um bi a j uveni l e tr ai ni ng s chool s oper at ed by the D epart m entof H um an S ervi ces ; pr ovi ded, how ever , thatthe t erm "e ducat i onal pr operty" s hal l noti ncl ude any s i xt eenth s ect i on s chool l and orl i eu l and on w hi ch i s notl ocat ed a s c h o o l b u ild in g , s c h o o l c a m p u s , re c re a tio n a l a re a o r a th le tic fi e ld
. ( 2) I ts hal l be a f

el ony for any p er s on t o pos s es s orcarry, w hether openl y orconce al ed, any gun, ri f l e, pi s t ol orotherf

i r earm of any ki nd, orany dynam i t e cartr i dge, bom b, gre nade, m i ne orpow er f ul expl os i ve on educa t i onal pr operty. H ow ever , thi s s ubs ect i on doe s nota ppl y t o a B B g u n , air rifle o r a ir p isto l. A n y p e rso n v io latin g th is s u b se c tio n sh a ll be gui l ty of

a f el ony and, upon convi ct i on ther eof , s hal l be f

i ned not m or e than Fi ve Thousand D ol l ar s ( $5, 000. 00) , orcomm i t t ed t o the cus t ody of

the St at e D epart m entof C orr ect i ons f

ornotm or e than thr ee (3 ) y e a rs , o r b o th
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 37- 17 ( R ev. 2006)


### 11 M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 37- 17( 2) ( R ev. 2006)
. T he pert i nen tlangua ge of the i ndi ctm ent 3 reads: ( 1) [ Par ker ] di d unl aw f ul l y, w i l l f

ul l y and f

el oni ous l y, w i thoutthe author i ty of l aw , and w i th del i ber at e des ign e ff e c t d e a th , k ill a n d m u rd e r a h u m a n b e in g ,” a n d ( 2 ) “ d i d u n l a wf

u l l y , wi l l f

u l l y a n d f e l o n i o u s l y a n d wi th o u ta u th o r i ty o f l a w, p o s s e s s a f

i r e a r m, t o - wi t : a p i s t o l , wh i l e o n th e c a mp u s o f Co a h o ma C o m m u n ity C o lle g e . . . . ¶ 2 3
. P a rk e r’s c laim th a t “ th e c h a rg e in c o u n t o n e e n c o m p a ss e d th e c h a rg e in c o u n t II” is
uns uppor t ed by the r ecor d. Par kerw as char ged w i th and convi ct ed of s eparat e cr i m es , as

### 12

evi nced by t he l anguage i n the i ndi ctm entand t he j ury i ns truct i ons . E ach cha r ge cons i s t s of
en ti rely d if

feren t el em en ts, req u ir ing d if feren t f ac ts. D o u b le jeo p ard y is no t violated w h ere
a d e fe n d a n t is c o n v ic te d o f s e p a ra te c ri m e s . Se e L e e v . S ta te , 469 So. 2d 1225, 1228- 29 (M iss
. 1 9 8 5 ). T h u s, itis i llo g ica l fo r P a rk e r to a rg u e o n a p p e a l th a t trial c o u rt su b jec ted h im to d o u b le je o p a rd y , a s h e w a s n o t tr ie d tw ic e fo r t h e s a m e c ri m e . ¶24
. A dd i t i on al l y, M i ssi ssi pp i C od e S ect i on 99 -7- 2 st at es: ( 1) T w o ( 2) orm or e of f ens es w hi ch ar e tr i abl e i n the s ame cour tm ay be charged i n the s ame i ndi ctm 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 ffen ses a re bas ed on tw o ( 2) orm or e ac t s ortr ans act i ons connec t ed t ogetheror cons t i tut i ng part s of

a comm on s cheme orpl an. ( 2) W her e tw o ( 2) ormore of f ens es ar e pr oper l y char 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. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -7 -2 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). H e re , th e tri a l co u rt co rre c tly tri e d P a rk e r in a sin g le p roc ee d ing , an d P ark er’s crim inal ch arg es w ere b ase d o n a si n g le, co n ti n u o u s ac t. P ark er’s of f ens es w er e pr oper l y char ged i n s epar at e count s ; thus the tr i al courtdi d nots ubj ectPar ker t o doubl e j eopar dy. I I I . W het her t he T ri al C ourt E rre d b y F ai l i ng t o O rder a M ent al Exam i nat i on. ¶25. Par kerf

ur theraver s thatt he t r i al cour ter r ed by f ai l i ng t o or dera compet ency hear i ng attr i al
. Par keri m pl i es , butdoes nots peci f i cal l y s t at e, thathe i s ent i t l ed t o a new tr i al , orat l eas ta c om pet ency hear i ng, be caus e the tr i al t es t i m ony i ndi cat ed thatther e w as an i s s ue of the d efe n d an t’ s co m p eten cy a t th e ti m e o f th e a ll eg ed crim e. P ark er a rgu es th at th e tri al co u rt

### The pe rtine nt lang uag e of Unifo rm Circu it andCo unty C ourt Ru le 9.0 6 states: 4 

### I f b e f ore o r d uri ngtri a lthec ourt , o f

i t s o wnm oti ono r

u po n m oti on of an attor ney, ha s re as onabl e ground to bel ie ve that thedef endant i s incom

pet ent to s tand tria l, thecourt s hal l order thedef endant t o sub mit to a m ent al examin ationbysome co mpetent p sy ch iatrist selected b y th e court in ac cordanc e wi th § 99- 13-11 of theMis si ss ippiCode Annot at ed of 1972. Af t e r e xam i nat i onthec ourt

s ha l lc on du c t

a h e ari ngt o de t e rm i nei f the def endant is compe te nt to st and tria l. Aft er hearing al l theevi denc e, thecourt sha llwei gh theevi denc e and makea de te rm inati on of whe the r the de fe ndant is comp etent to standtrial. Mis s. Unif

. Cir. & Cty. R. 9. 06. 13 ne ve rr a i s e d a n i s s ue o f c ompe t e nc y orc on f

i r med Pa r ke r ’ s c ompe t e nc y a s h e b e l i eves t he law re q u ire s, c iti n g M iss iss ip p i U n ifo rm C irc u it an d C o u n ty C o u rt R u le 9 .0 6 a s s u p p o rt. 4 ¶ 2 6
. T h e d e ter m in a tio n o f w h e th e r th e re a re re a so n a b le g ro u n d s fo r a c o m p e ten c y tes t is d is c re tio n a ry w ith th e c o u rt . Co n n e r v . S ta te , 63 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ) over r ul ed on othergr ounds by W

e a th e rs p o o n v. S ta te , 732 So. 2d 158, 162 ( M i s s . 1999)
. T he t es tf or compet ency t o s t and tr i al and ther eby w hetherrea s onabl e gr ounds exi s ti s “w hetherthe def endanthas ‘ s uf

f i ci entpr es entabi l i ty t o consul tw i th hi s l aw yerw i th a r eas onabl e degr ee of r at i on al under s t andi ng’ and has a r at i onal as w el l as f actual under s t andi ng of the proceedi ngs agai ns thi m . ” D u n n v. S ta te , 69 3 So
. 2d 13 33 , 13 40 ( M i s s . 19 97 ) ( quot i ng G odinezv. Mor an , 5 0 9 U .S . 3 8 9 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 2 6 8 0 , 1 2 5 L . E d . 2 d 3 2 1 (1 9 9 3 ))
. ¶27. W e f

i nd thatPar ker ’ s a r gum enti s f at al l y f l aw ed i n tw o w ays . Fi r s t , Par keral l eges thatther e w er e i s s ues s urr oundi ng hi s com petency atthe t i m e of the cr i m e, and notatt he tim e o f t ri a l, a s th e ru le re q u ir e s . See M i s s . U ni f
. C i r . & C ty. R
. 9. 06. Si nce Parkeraver s on

### Th e recordlacks any evid ence that Park er intend ed to put fo rth aninsan ity d efense 5 

### at trial. 14 a p p e a l th a t h e w a s a lleg e d ly in c o m p e ten t a t th e tim e o f th e c rim e , an in sa n ity d e fe n se w o u ld have be en more appr opr i at e. 5 ¶28. Second, Par ker ’ s ar gum ent f ai l s beca us e he cl ai m s , i ncorr ect l y, that the rul e r equi r ed the tr i al courtt o bri ng f or th the i s s ue on i t s ow n m ot i on. T he rul e, how ever , pr ovi des t hat t he courtm us tor dera ment al exami nat i on by s om e compet entps ychi atr i s tonl y i f i thas

“ re a s o n a b le g ro u n d s ” to d o so . M is s . U n if . C ir . & C ty . R . 9 .0 6
. T hus , i f r eas onabl e gr ounds exi s t , the rul e r equi r es thatthe courtor derthe def endantt o s ubm i tt o a ment al exami nat i on, and af t ers uch exam i nat i on, then the courts hal l conducta hea r i ng t o det erm i ne i f t he d e fe n d a n t is c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial. T h e tria l c o u rt m a y ra ise th e iss u e o f c o m p e ten c y to sta n d trial s ua s

pont e o r a n a tto rn e y m a y m a k e a m o tio n c o n c e rn in g th e d e fe n d a n t’s a b ili ty t o st and tr i al
. M i s s . U ni f
. C i r . & C ty. R
. 9. 06. H er e, Par kerf ai l s t o pr es entany f

act s on appea l thatthe tr i al courthad r easona bl e gr ounds t o or derPar kert o s ubm i tt o a ment al exami nat i on; f

urther , the r ecor d l acks any evi dence t o s how thatPar ker ’ s couns el r ai s ed the issue o f h is co m p eten cy to stan d tri al. T h u s, a ft er a tho rou g h rev iew o f th e re co rd, th is C o u rt f i nds thatthe tr i al c our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s cr et i on by f ai l i ng t o or dera ment al exami nat i on,
as i thad no r eas onabl e gr ounds t o do s o. I V . W het her t he T ri al C ourt Erred by D enyi ng P arke r’ s M ot i ons f or D irec ted V er d ict. ¶29. Par kera r gues thatthe tr i al c our terr ed by denyi ng hi s m ot i on and r enew ed mot i on f or d ire c ted v e rd ict. S p e c ifica lly , P a rk e r cla im s th a t th e S tate fa iled to p ro v e a ll o f th e e lem e n ts

### 15

of del i ber at e- des i gn m ur der
. Par kerf ur theraver s thatB uck and J us t i n M oor e, tw o of t he St at e’ s w i tnes s es t es t i f

yi ng agai ns tPar ker , had an i nt er es ti n Par ker ’ s convi ct i on, butnever sta tes h o w o r w h y th is w a s so . O n th e c o n tra ry , the re c o rd sh o w s th a t n e ith e r B u c k n o r Ju stin M oor e w oul d gai n anythi ng f r om Parker ’ s c onvi ct i on, as nei therm en w er e eve rcons i der ed
s us pect s i n the ca s e. ¶ 3 0
. T h is C o u rt re v ie w s th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n fo r a d ir e c te d v e rd ic t d e n o v o . B r anch v. S ta te , 998 So. 2d 411, 416 ( M i s s . 2008). “I n re vi ew i ng a deni al of a mot i on f

ora di r ect ed
ver di ct , i f

w e det erm i ne the evi dence poi nt s i n f avorof the def endanton a ny e l ementof the of f ens e s uch that a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d nothave f ound the def

endantgui l ty beyond a
r eas onabl e doubt , w e mustr ever s e the convi ct i on. ” I d. ( quot i ng Co lem a n v. S ta te , 947 So. 2 d 8 7 8 , 8 8 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 )). ¶31. T he el ement s f

ordel i ber at e- des i gn m ur derar e: ( 1) the def endantki l l ed the vi ct i m , ( 2)
w i thoutauthor i ty of

l aw , and ( 3) w i th del i ber at e des i gn t o ef f ecthi s death. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97 -3- 19 (R ev. 2 00 6). P arkerargues that the S t at e nev er pr esent ed p roof of each o f these elem en ts, an d that, if

an y thing , itm inim all y m ad e a p ri m a fa cie ca se ag ains t him
. H o w ev er,
cons i der i ng the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the St at e, the evi dence pr es ent ed w as l egal l y s uf

f i ci entt o s uppor tthe murde rconvi ct i on. ¶32. T he evi dence i n the r ecor d cl ear l y s how s ( 1) that Par ker w as i n pos s es s i on of a . 380
c a lib e r w e a p o n a n d c a rtrid g e s o n th e n ig h t in q u e stio n , (2 ) th a t P a rk e r sh o t an d in ju re d Ju stin M o o re , (3 ) th a t P a rk e r sh o t an d k ille d J a rv is M o o re , an d (4 ) th a t Ja rv is M o o re ’s d e a th
r es ul t ed f

r om s ever al guns hotw ounds or i gi nat i ng fr om a . 380 cal i berw eapon. T he

### 16

evi dence f

ur thers how s thatPar kerki l l ed J arvi s M oor e w i thoutthe author i ty of l aw , as
n o th in g in th e re c o rd d e m o n s tr a te s th a t P a rk e r’ s lif e w a s in im m in e n t d a n g e r. ¶33. Fi nal l y, ther e i s evi dence i n the r ecor d t o s uppor t the j ury’ s f i ndi ng that Par kerki l l ed J arvi s M oor e w i t h t he deli ber at e des i gn t o ef f ecthi s death. T hi s C our thas acknow l edged “that‘ del i ber at e des i gn’ t o t ake the l i f e of anotherco nn otes int entt o ki l l
. ” J o n e s v . S ta te , 710 So. 2d 870, 878 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng P e te rs o n v . S ta te , 24 2 S o. 2d 42 0, 42 7 (M i ss. 1 9 7 0 )). “ [D ]elib e ra te d e sig n to k ill a p e rso n m a y b e fo rm e d v e ry q u ick ly , an d p e rh a p s o n ly
m om ent s be f

or e the ac tof

cons um m at i ng the i nt ent . ” Br o wn , 96 5 S o. 2d 10 23 , 10 30 (M i ss. 2007) ( quot i ng G o ss e tt v. S ta te , 6 6 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 5 , 1 2 9 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 )). P a rk e r a d m itt e d in h is
s t at ementthathe had pos s essed t he gu n atl eas ta w eek pr i ort o the s hoot i ng. H e f ur ther
a d mi t t e d th a t , d u r i n g th e s h o o t i n g , h e d e l i b e r a t e l y a i me d a tth e p e r s o n w h o pu n c h e d h i m. K etri ck B u ck test if

ied that P ark er “ p o p p ed o ff a co u p le of ro u n d s, ” p au sed , then fi red m o re
r api dl y, al l w hi l e ai m i ng atJ arvi s M oor e. The e vi dence s uppor t s the f i ndi ng thatPar kerhad th e re q u is ite in te n t, e v e n if it f o rm e d ju s t m o m e n ts b e fo re th e a c t. ¶34
. In li g h t of t h ese fac ts, this C ou rtf i nd s that the evidence i s suff i ci en t t o su p p o rt P a rk e r’s m u rd e r c o n v ictio n , an d th a t an y ra tio n a l ju ro r c o u ld h a v e fo u n d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t that th e S tat e p rov ed ea ch elem en t of d eli b era te-de sign m u rde r. T h u s, the tri al co u rt p ro p e rl y d e n ie d P a rk e r’ s m o tio n fo r a d ir e c te d v e rd ic t. V . W het her Parker’ s T ri al C ounselR endered I nef f ect i ve A s s i s t ance. ¶35. N ext , Parkerav ers thath e w as den i ed his S i xth A m end m ent r i ghtt o ef f ect i ve
as s i s t ance of

counse l
. Par kerass i gns t he f ol l ow i ng er r or s on di r ectappea l : ( 1) tr i al couns el f ai l ed t o obj ectt o the tr i al court ’ s i l l egal s ent ence of l i f e w i thoutpar ol e; ( 2) tr i al couns el

### Ru le 22 (b) o f the M ississipp i Ru les of App ellate Pro cedure pro vid es: 6 

### Is sue s whi ch m ay bera is ed in post -c onvic tionp roceedings may al so bera is ed on direc t a ppea l i f s uch i ss ues ar e ba se d on fa ct s ful ly appare nt from therec ord. Where theappe ll ant

is repre se nte d by counse l who did not repre se nt t he a ppel lant at t

ri al , the fa ilureto rai sesuc h is sue s on dire ct appe alsha llcons titute a wa ive r barring con sideratio n o f the issu es in p ost-co nv ictionpro ceedin gs. 17 f ai l ed t o def

end Parkeragai ns tdoubl e j eopar dy; ( 3) tr i al c ouns el f ai l ed t o f i l e a mot i on f

or
a n e w trial; a n d (4 ) tria l co u n se l fa iled to ra ise th e iss u e o f c o m p e ten c y b e fo re th e trial c o u rt. ¶ 3 6
. T hi s C our t has addr es s ed the pr oper pr ocedur es f or r evi ew i ng cl ai m s f

ori nef f ect i ve
a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. See R e a d v. S ta te , 43 0 S o . 2 d 8 32 , 84 1-842 (M i ss. 1 9 8 3 ). G e n e ra lly , “in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e c laim s a re m o re a p p ro p ria tely b ro u g h t d u rin g p o stconvi ct i on pr ocee di ngs . ” A rc h e r v . S ta te , 9 8 6 S o . 2 d 9 5 1 , 9 5 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ). “ T h is is beca us e on di r ect ap peal t he C our ti s l i m i t ed t o the tr i al courtr ecor d i n i t s r evi ew of t he cl ai m . ” I d. W h e re th e re c o rd lac k s s u ffic ien t ev id e n c e to a d e q u a tely a d d re ss th e c laim , this C o u rt sh o u ld d e n y 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 o stc o n v ic tio n -r e lie f p e titio n . I d. ( ci t i ng W

ilch e r v . S ta te , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 7 7 6 , 8 2 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 )). T hi s C our tm ay, how ever , addr es s an i nef f ect i venes s cl ai m on di r ectappeal i f the pr es ent ed is s u e s a re b a s e d o n fa c ts fu lly a p p a re n t f ro m th e re c o rd
. Id
. ; M i s s . R
. A pp. P. 22( b)
. Si nce 6 th e fa c ts a n d iss u e s a re a p p a re n t fro m th e re c o rd , w e w ill ad d re ss the m e rits o f P a rk e r’s c laim
o f i n e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. ¶37
. T he s ubs t ant i ve st and ard of r eview foran i nef f ect i ve- as s i s t ance cl ai m i s a w el l
- s ett l ed, two - p r o n g e d p r i n c i p l e o f l a w. I n orde rt o pre vai l on a cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , a def endant m us tpr ove thathi s att orney' s perf orm ance w as def

i ci ent , and thatthe

### 18

d e fic ien c y w a s s o su b s ta n tia l as to d e p riv e th e d e fe n d a n t o f a fa ir trial. Str i ckland v. W

as hington , 466 U
. S
. 668, 687-696, 104 S. C t . 2052, 80 L
. E d. 2 d 6 7 4 (1 9 8 4 ); W

ilch e r v . S ta te , 4 7 9 S o . 2 d 7 1 0 , 7 1 3 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ); Str inger v. S ta te , 454 So. 2d 468, 477 ( M i s s . 1984)
. Thi s Courtl ooks a tthe t ot al i ty of ci r cumst ance s t o de t erm i ne w hetherc ouns el ' s e f f or t s w er e both def

i ci entand p re ju d ic ia l. 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 ); R e a d v. S ta te , 430 So. 2d 832, 839 ( M i s s . 1983). “Judi ci al scrut i ny of couns el ' s per f

or m ance [ i s ] hi ghl y def

er ent i al
. ” Str i c kl

and , 466 U
. S
. at 689
. T her e i s a s tr ong but r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on thatcouns el ' s conductf al l s w i thi n the w i de r ange of re a s o n a b le p ro fe s s io n a l a s s is ta n c e . Car ney , 5 2 5 S o . 2 d a t 7 8 0 ; G il liar d v. S ta te , 4 6 2 S o . 2 d 7 1 0 , 7 1 4 (M iss
. 1 9 8 5 ). O n ly w h e re it i s re a so n a b ly p ro b a b le thatbutf

orthe att orney' s err or s , the out come of t he t r i al w oul d have be en d if fe r e n t, w ill w e fi n d th a t c o u n s e l' s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e fi c ie n t. D i ckey v. S ta te , 6 6 2 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 0 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ); R ee dv . S ta te , 536 So. 2d 1336, 1 3 3 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). Ho lly v . S ta te , 7 1 6 S o . 2 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 9 (M is s . 1 9 9 8 ). ¶38. Fur therm or e, the appel l antbear s “the bur den of pr ovi ng thatcouns el ' s per f or m ance
w as def i ci entand pr ej udi ci al
. ” B ra n c h v. S ta te , 882 So. 2d 36, 52 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng H a n se n v . S ta te , 649 So. 2d 1256, 1258 ( M i s s . 1994) )
. A ddi t i onal l y, ther e i s no cons t i tut i onal rig h t to e rro rle ss c o u n se l. Id. ( ci t i ng S ta c kv. Sta te , 8 6 0 S o . 2 d 6 8 7 , 6 9 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 )); Ca b e llo v. S ta te , 5 2 4 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) ( C our thel d thatthe r i ghtt o ef f ect i ve couns el doe s note nt i t l e def endantt o have an att orney w ho m akes no m i s t akes attr i al ; def endantm er el y has r i ghtt o have c om pet ent
co u n sel). A . F ai l ure t o ob j ect t o t ri al court ’ s i m posi t i on of an i l l egal s ent ence. ¶ 3 9
. F irst, P ark er a rgu es th at he w as c o n sti tutio n a lly d e n ied e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l, beca us e hi s tr i al couns el f ai l ed t o obj ectt o the tr i al court ’ s i m pos i t i on of an i l l egal s ent ence .

### 19

Par kerbel i eves thathi s tr i al couns el s houl d have obj ect ed t o thi s e rr orby the tr i al court , and, b e c a u s e h e d id n o t, th a t h e w a s d e n ie d e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. ¶4 0. G ener al l y, t he deci s i on t o m ake ce r t ai n o bj e c t i on s f a l l s w i thi n the r e a l m of tr i al
s tr a te g y a n d is n o t g ro u n d s fo r a c la im o f i n e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. S p ice r v . S ta te , 973 So. 2d 184, 203 ( M i s s . 2007)
. I n the i ns t antcas e, how ever , w e ca nnotsay thatt r i al
couns el ’ s f

ai l ur e t o obj ectf

al l s w i thi n the r eal m of tr i al s tr at egy, as Par ker ’ s tr i al couns el
s h o u ld h a v e o b

je c te d to s u c h e rr o r b y th e tr ia l c o u rt . ¶41. N everthel es s , Par ker f ai l s t o s how on appea l how s uch con du ct by the tr i al couns el p rejud iced h is case
. D esp it e the re b eing n o o b jecti o n b y P ark er’s tr ial c o u n se l, th is C o u rt
r evi ew ed thi s i s s ue underthe pl ai n- err or doctr i ne; w e ther ef or e di r ectthatPar kers hal l be
s e n te n c e d p ro p e rl y o n re m a n d
.

B . F ai l ure t o def

end agai nst doub l e j eopardy. ¶42. N e xt , Pa rke ra r gu e s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t ance bas ed on the tr i al couns el ’ s f ai l ur e t o def

end Par keragai ns tdoubl e j eopar dy. Par keraver s thathe w as convi ct ed of capi t al m ur der , and thatthi s , al ong w i th hi s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of a f i r earm on s chool pr operty, s om ehow i m pl i cat es the D oubl e J eopar dy Cl aus e of the f eder al a nd s t at e cons t i tut i ons . A s di s cus s ed
a b o v e , w e fi n d th is a rg u m e n t to b e w ith o u t m e ri t. ¶43. T he r ecor d i s c l earthatParkerw as c har ged w i th a nd c onvi ct ed of del i ber at e- des i gn
m ur der , as evi nced by the l anguage i n t he indi ct m entand the j ury i ns truct i ons . T her ef or e, Par ker ’ s pos s es s i on of

a fi rearm on s chool pr operty w as nota l es s er - i ncl uded of f ens e, beca us e Parkerw as notchar ged w i th o r conv i ct ed of capi t al m ur der
. Par kerw as char ged
w i th and convi ct ed of

thr ee s epar at e cr i m es thatr equi r ed di f f er entf act s and di f

f er ent

### 20

e le m e n ts o f p ro o f. See M iss. C o d e A n n . § § 9 7 -3-1 9 , 9 7 -3-7 (2)(b ) an d 9 7 -37 -17 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). T h u s, P a rk e r w a s n o t su b jec ted to d o u b le je o p a rd y , an d fa ili n g to d e fe n d a g a in st s u c h in th is
ca se d o es n o t con sti tute d eficien t perfo rm an ce u n d er p ron g o n e o f Str i c kl and
. C . F ai l ure t o rai s e com pet ency i s s ue. ¶ 4 4
. P a rk e r a lso a rg u e s th a t h is tria l co u n se l re n d e re d in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e b y fa ili n g to
r ai s e the i s s ue of

compet ency a ttr i al
. T he r ecor d i s de voi d of any evi dence t o s how thatt he tr i al courthad r eas onabl e gr ounds t o or dera ment al exami nat i on pur s uantt o M i ssi s s i ppi U ni f or m C i r cui tand C ount y C our tR ule 9. 06
. B eca us e the r ecor d l acks any evi dence t hat
w ou l d s ug ge s tPa r ke rwas i nc ompe t e nt , we c a nn otc on c l ud e tha tPa r ke r ’ s c ou ns el act ed in e ff e c tiv e ly u n d e r t h is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r. See J o rda n v. S ta te , 995 So
. 2d 94 , 11 0 (M i ss. 2008) ( ci t i ng Co n ley v. S ta te , 7 9 0 S o . 2 d 7 7 3 , 7 8 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 )); M iss. R
. A p p . P
. 2 8 (a)(6).

D . F a ilu r e to M a k e P o s t- tr ia l M o ti o n s . ¶ 4 5
. F in a lly , P a rk e r ar g u e s th a t tria l co u n se l ren d e re d ine ffe c tiv e as sis tan c e b y failin g to
m ake a m ot i on forj udgm entnot w i ths t andi ng t he ver di ct( JN O V ) or , i n the al t ernat i ve, a new tr ia l. I n fa c t, th e re c o rd la c k s a n y p o s t- tr ia l m o tio n s e x c e p t f o r P a rk e r’ s n o tic e o f a p p e a l. ¶46. I n Ho lla n d

v. S ta te , this C o u rt d e a lt w ith w h e th e r a law y e r’s fa ilu re to m a k e a n y p o sttr ia l m o tio n s c o n s titu te d in e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. Ho lla n d v. S ta te , 656 So. 2d 1192 ( M i s s . 1995)
. T he tr i al l aw yeri n Hol land f ai l ed t o m ake any pos t - tr i al m ot i ons , t o m ove f or
a d ir e c te d v e rd ic t, o r e v e n to a s k f o r a p e re m p to ry in s tru c tio n . Id
. at1197. O n appea l , t he C our tfo un d tha tthe l a w ye r ’ s pe r f ormanc e a mount e d t o i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ou ns el beca us e the om i s s i ons ( 1) “ depr i ved the tr i al j udge of the of the oppor tuni ty t o reexami ne

### 21

pos s i bl e err or s attr i al ” w hi ch ( 2) “depr i ved H ol l and of a fai r t r i al
. ” I

d. ( f ol l ow i ng t he Str i ckl and s ta n d a rd ). ¶47. I n S im o n v. S ta te , thi s Courtdi s t i ngui s hed Hol land s o m e w h a t b y s ta tin g th a t, “ [I ]n Hol land thi s C our tw as concerned w i th t he f actthatthe tr i al couns el had com pl et el y f ai l ed t o gi ve the tr i al c our tthe oppor tuni ty t o r evi ew the s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence atthe end of the tr i al
. ” Sim on , 857 So. 2d 668, 690 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng Ho lla n d v. S ta te , 656 So. 2d at 1 1 9 7 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). I n Sim on , tr i al couns el f ai l ed t o move f

ora di r ect ed ver di ctatt he
c lo s e o f a ll e v id e n c e , b u t d id file a m o tio n fo r JN O V , o r, in th e a lte rn a tiv e , a n e w tr ia l. Id
. T he Sim on C our tf

ound thattr i al couns el ’ s conductdi d notcons t i tut e i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance
o f c o u n s e l. Id
. I n the i ns t antcas e, Par kerm oved f ora di r ect ed ver di ctboth atthe cl os e of th e S t a t e ’ s c a s e - i n - c h i e f a n d a g a i n a tth e e n d o f th e tr i a l
. T h u s , th e tr i a l j u d g e h a d two oppor tuni t i es t o r evi ew t he l egal suf f i ci ency of

t he evi dence , as pr evi ous l y di s cus s ed i n I s s ue IV
. ¶48. W e not e, how ever , that “[ I ] n a cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng, m ot i ons f or a di r ect ed ver di ct [a n d JN O V ] c h a lle n g e th e le g a l s u ff ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g th e g u ilty v e rd ic t.” Cro ft v. S ta te , 9 9 2 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 1 , 1 1 5 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 8 ). H e re , the trial c o u rt h a d a n o p p o rtu n ity t o r evi ew the l egal s uf

f i ci ency of

the evi dence , butdi d nothave a n oppor tuni ty t o r evi ew t he
w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e , a s P a rk e r’ s c o u n s e l f a ile d to fi le a m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l. Stew ar t v. S ta te , 909 So. 2d 52, 56 (M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng S h e ffie ld v. S ta te , 749 So
. 2d 1 23 , 12 7 (M i ss. 1999) ) ( out l i ni ng the s t andar d of re vi ew form ot i ons fora new t r i al )
. T hus , i f t he rul es f

r om Hol land and Sim on ar e appl i ed t o thi s cas e, the f ai l ur e t o f

i l e a mot i on f

ora new t r i al
co n sti tuted a d eficien t pe rform an ce u n d er p ron g o n e o f Str i c kl and , sin c e th e trial ju d g e d id

### 22

nothave a n opportuni ty t o r econs i derw hetherthe ver di ctw as contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng
w ei ghtof

the evi dence
. H ow ever , Par ker ’ s ar gu m entm us tal s o s at i s f y pr ong tw o under Str i ckland
. Str ickland v. W as hington , 4 66 U. S. 6 68 , 1 04 S. Ct
. 2 05 2, 8 0 L. Ed. 2 d 674 (19 8 4 ). ¶49. E ven though the tr i al counsel ’s f ai l ur e t o m ove f

or a new tr i al cons t i tut ed def i ci ent per f or m ance , Par kerf

ai l s t o s how how s uch defi ci ency pr ej udi ced hi s cas e. Speci f i cal l y, Par kerf ai l ed t o s how how the f

i l i ng of a mot i on f

orJN O V or , i n the al t ernat i ve, a new tr i al
w o u ld h a v e c h a n g e d th e o u tco m e o f th e p ro c e e d in g s. T h e re w a s n o re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty thatthe tr i al j udge w oul d have gr ant ed the mot i on f ora new tr i al had he be en af f or ded a
s econd cha nce t o re vi ew t he evi dence , as tw o eyew i tnes s es t es t i f i ed att r i al t o s eei ng Par ker
us e a gun on s chool prope r ty t o i nj ur e Jus t i n M oor e and t o ki l l J arvi s M oor e. T he evi dence i n the r ecor d overw hel m i ngl y s uppor t s the ve rdi ct . Fur ther , Par kerbear s the bur den of p rov ing i n effec ti v e ass ist an ce of co u n sel, an d w ith o u t sh o w ing ho w tri al co u n sel’s f ail u re t o m ake a pos t - tr i al m ot i on pre j udi ced the out come of

hi s cas e, he si m pl y does notm eett hat b u rd e n . T h u s, th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. V I . W het her Parker I s E nt i t l ed t o R el i ef B as ed on C um ul at i ve E rror . ¶50. In t his assi gn m ent of err or, P arkerargues i ndi vi dual err or s occurr ed that , w hen
c o n sid e re d c u m u lativ e ly , d e n ied h im th e rig h t to a fa ir an d im p a rtial trial. In c a se s w h e re th is C our tf i nds harm l es s err ororerr orthati s notr ever s i bl e i n and of i t s el f , the C ou rthas t he di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne on a cas e- by- cas e bas i s w hethert he err or s r equi r e r ever s al due t o the
re s u ltin g c u m u la tiv e p re ju d ic ia l e ff

e c t. B y ro m v. S ta te , 8 6 3 S o . 2d 8 3 6 , 8 4 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). H ow ever , i f

ther e i s no “r ever s i bl e err orin any p art , so t her e i s no r ever s i bl e err ort o the

### 23

w hol e. ” D u n c a n v . S ta te , 939 So. 2d 772, 784 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng Mc Fe e v. S ta te , 511 So. 2 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 9 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 ))
. ¶51
. P arkerav ers thatthe cu m ulat i ve eff ecto f the al l eged err ors attr i al p rej ud i ced h i s case and depr i ved hi m of

hi s f undament al r i ghtt o a f

ai rtr i al
. T he i ssues addr es s ed pr evi ous l y, how ever , do notri s e t o t he l evel of r ever s i bl e err or , ei thers t andi ng al one orw hen cons i der ed
a s a w h o le. T h e re fo re , this a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶52. Forthe f

or egoi ng r eas ons , the j ury c onvi ct i ons of murde r, agg ravat ed ass aul t , and pos s es s i on o f

a f i r e a r m on e du c a t i on a l p r op e r ty a r e a f f i r med. H oweve r , we v a c a t e t he
se n ten c e o f life w ith o u t p a ro le f o r th e m u rd e r c o n v ictio n a n d re m a n d fo r re se n ten c in g w ith in the st atutory g uidel i nes. ¶ 5 3
. COUNT I : CONVI CT I ON OF P OS S ES S I ON OF A F I RE ARM ON CAM P US AN D SENTENC E OF THREE ( 3 ) YE AR S I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR E CT I ON S , AF F I RMED . CO UN T I I : CO NV I CT I ON OF M URD ER, AFF I RM ED. SENTE NCE OF LI FE W I THO UT PAROLE I S VAC ATED A N D T H IS C A S E IS R E M A N D E D F O R R E S E N T E N C IN G A S T O C O U N T II. CO UN T I I I : CO NV I CT I ON OF AG GR AV AT E D A S S AU L T AN D S E NT E NC E OF F I F TE EN ( 1 5 ) YE ARS I N T HE CU S TODY OF THE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, A FFIRM ED . T H E S E N TE N C ES IM PO SED I N C O U N TS I AND I I I OF THI S CAUSE S HA LL RUN CO NCU RRENTLY W I TH EAC H O THER AND CO NSE CUTI VELY TO A NY A ND A LL S ENTENCES PREVI OU S LY I M P OS ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR, K IT C H E N S A N D C H A N D L E R , J J. , C O N C U R . G R A V E S , P . J. , C O N C U R S IN R E S U L T O N L Y .