Opinion ID: 1705889
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Adequately Defend Spicer.

Text: ¶ 35. Under this general assertion of counsel's failure to adequately defend him, Spicer raises numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Failure to Object to the Insufficiency of the Indictment. ¶ 36. Spicer asserts that his attorneys were ineffective in failing to object to the sufficiency of the indictment because the indictment did not include a statutory aggravating factor nor a mens rea element. The underlying substantive claim was considered on direct appeal ( Spicer, 921 So.2d at 319), and it is now barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3) (Rev.2007). This Court has held: The procedural bars of waiver, different theories, and res judicata and the exception thereto as defined in Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1-5) are applicable in death penalty PCR Applications. Irving v. State, 498 So.2d 305 (Miss.1986); Evans v. State, 485 So.2d 276 (Miss.1986). Rephrasing direct appeal issues for post-conviction purposes will not defeat the procedural bar of res judicata. Irving v. State, 498 So.2d 305 (Miss.1986); Rideout v. State, 496 So.2d 667 (Miss. 1986); Gilliard v. State, 446 So.2d 590 (Miss.1984). The Petitioner carries the burden of demonstrating that his claim is not procedurally barred. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(6) (Supp.1991); Cabello v. State, 524 So.2d 313, 320 (Miss.1988). However, an alleged error should be reviewed, in spite of any procedural bar, only where the claim is so novel that it has not previously been litigated, or, perhaps, where an appellate court has suddenly reversed itself on an issue previously thought settled.' Irving v. State, 498 So.2d 305, 311 (Miss.1986). Lockett v. State, 614 So.2d 888, 893 (Miss. 1992). ¶ 37. Further, [w]e must caution that other issues which were either presented through direct appeal or could have been presented on direct appeal or at trial are procedurally barred and cannot be relitigated under the guise of poor representation by counsel. Foster v. State, 687 So.2d 1124, 1129 (Miss.1996). 2. Failure to Object to the Improper Removal of Jurors for Cause. ¶ 38. Spicer asserts that his counsel were ineffective in failing to object to the removal of jurors Creekmore and Peters. Despite counsel's failure to object at trial, this Court fully addressed the merits of this issue on direct appeal. Spicer, 921 So.2d at 319-22. The underlying issue is procedurally barred, and it will not be considered again under the guise of ineffective assistance of counsel. Foster, 687 So.2d at 1129. 3. Trial Counsel's Waiver of Opening Statements. ¶ 39. Spicer asserts that his counsel were ineffective in failing to provide the jury with an opening statement. Opening statements are not mandatory. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-147. Failure to give an opening statement is not per se ineffective assistance of counsel. Rushing v. State, 711 So.2d 450, 458 (Miss.1998). Branch v. State, 882 So.2d 36, 55 (Miss. 2004). This Court has held that an attorney's failure to provide an opening statement is a matter of trial strategy. See Rushing, 711 So.2d at 458. Spicer's claim does not pass the standard set forth in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 4. Failure to Effectively Cross-examine Witness for Prosecution.
¶ 40. Spicer contends that counsel was ineffective in bringing out favorable character evidence of the decedent during cross-examination of the victims's mother, Patricia Elder. He asserts that counsel failed to investigate prior to trial and waited until cross-examination of Mrs. Elder to investigate. During questioning, Mrs. Elder testified that her son came to her house every morning for coffee. On direct appeal, this Court addressed Mrs. Elder's testimony on the merits and found that it was admissible, holding that such testimony did not amount to victim-impact testimony. Spicer, 921 So.2d at 307. This underlying issue is procedurally barred. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(2) (Rev.2007). Notwithstanding this procedural bar and assuming, arguendo, that trial counsel was ineffective, Spicer cannot meet the second prong of Strickland by showing prejudice. ¶ 41. Spicer also contends that counsel should have investigated ahead of time whether Michael Chubby Jones, a convicted felon, had received anything from the State in exchange for his testimony. Jones testified that he received nothing in exchange for his testimony. Spicer's assertion assumes that counsel did not already know the answer to the question and was not merely putting skepticism in the jurors' heads. Spicer cannot show that this question was anything more than trial strategy, especially when defense counsel effectively broached the subject again in closing arguments and told the jury that Jones was a convict and questioned his truthfulness. This claim does not pass the standard set forth in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
¶ 42. Spicer asserts that his trial counsel failed to point out weaknesses in the testimony of Carmen McIntire, the State's forensic toxicologist, who testified that no drugs, legal or illegal, were detected in Hebert's blood. He provides this Court with an article from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which Spicer purports will show that fifty percent of methamphetamine is removed from a user's body within the first twelve hours. As the State argues, this literature may be useful when determining drug levels in a living being. The toxicology screening in question at trial, however, was of Edmond Hebert, who was no longer living. This issue is without merit.
¶ 43. Spicer asserts that his counsel bolstered the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses by asking Patricia Elder, James Elder and Larry Beauchamp to reiterate that the State's Exhibit 4, the sword, belonged to the victim. As the State points out, defense counsel was asking these question to determine why the victim had so many swords and daggers and how these witness came to know that the swords and knives belonged to the victim. This issue is without merit. ¶ 44. Next, Spicer takes issue with Dr. Hayne's testimony at trial that the victim had a recorded age of 32 years and that he appeared the recorded age of 32 years. Spicer points out that the postmortem report shows Edmond Hebert to have been 42 years old at the time of his death, as does the death certificate. Spicer also takes issue with Dr. Hayne's veracity regarding his testimony that he has performed more than 25,000 autopsies during his career. Spicer argues that counsel should have questioned Dr. Hayne about the number of autopsies he had performed and impeached him for misstating Hebert's age. Spicer offers no proof that Dr. Hayne was not truthful when testifying that he has performed more than 25,000 autopsies during his career. Spicer merely speculates that 25,000 is an unusually high number. As for Dr. Hayne's testimony that the victim was 32 years of age at the time of his death, rather than 42 years, Spicer assumes that this otherwise irrelevant fact would somehow impeach Dr. Hayne as a witness. These claims do not pass the standard set forth in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. ¶ 45. Spicer next asserts that counsel was ineffective in agreeing with Dr. Hayne that the victim's wounds were defensive in nature. During cross-examination of Dr. Hayne by Hurt, the following dialogue occurred. Q. Let me ask you this then. Would the wounds that you described, other than the cause of death, the diagonal wound on the right forehead, would they not have been consistent with a fight between the parties? A. There are some injuries I cannot ascertain; I would favor that they are defensive. The presence of multiple fractures with the bones of the right hand and fingers, with concurrent injuries to the back of the right hand, the bruising, that is highly consistent with a defensive posturing injury. Q. Agreed. A. That would give evidence that that injury and, of course, the injuries to the face are consistent with defensive posturing injuries or purposely inflicted injuries. The superficial injury to the back of the right arm, I can't tell you what caused that. The superficial abrasion to the right back, I can't tell you that either. ¶ 46. It is Spicer's contention that this line of questioning by defense counsel was not only a concession that was inconsistent with counsel's predetermined self-defense theory, but also a breach of counsel's duty of loyalty to Spicer. The State argues that the context of the questioning reveals that counsel was agreeing with Dr. Hayne that there were some injuries the doctor could not ascertain. Defense counsel clearly was trying to point out that the victim may have had injuries that were consistent with Spicer's theory of the case. Because there were injuries that the doctor could not describe as defensive in nature, counsel agreed. Spicer's argument is without merit. ¶ 47. Finally, Spicer asserts that defense counsel was ineffective in going over blood spatters in Hebert's house with Officer Hillman. Spicer argues that counsel's cross-examination was an exhaustive reiteration of the location of every blood spatter in the victim's trailer. Spicer assumes that this line of questioning bolstered the testimony of the State's witness, and it may have. Spicer's attorney used this testimony to bolster the theory that blood spatters appeared throughout the trailer because a fight occurred between the defendant and the victim. During closing, Mr. Barnett stated: What did Al Hillman tell you sitting right there? He said blood was all over the trailer. And Mr. Hurt asked him, said, this far wallif I may, ladies and gentlemen, let me show you this. You come in here, it's real simple. Here is where the body was. There's blood over here. That could have been caused from just one lick, or two licks. But, it's 12 feet, according to Mr. Hillman, 12 feet over there, and blood is all over there. This line of questioning can easily be seen as trial strategy considering defense counsel's closing argument regarding blood spatter. 5. Failure to Object to Character Evidence. ¶ 48. Spicer asserts that counsel were ineffective in failing to object to the introduction of a photograph of Edmond Hebert before his death. The substantive issue underlying this ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was fully discussed on direct appeal. Spicer, 921 So.2d at 306-09. Because the underlying issue was held to have no merit, Spicer cannot show prejudice. This Court found the photo to be admissible, and this Court will not allow the issue to be re-argued under the guise of ineffective assistance of counsel. Foster, 687 So.2d at 1129. 6. Failure to Object to Evidence of Flight. ¶ 49. Spicer asserts that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the introduction of evidence of flight. The substantive issue underlying this ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was fully discussed on direct appeal. Spicer, 921 So.2d at 304-06. Spicer is not entitled to any. relief. ¶ 50. Spicer also contends that this Court's direct-appeal opinion was flawed. In other words, Spicer would have this Court reconsider its holding on the substantive issue. This Court held that the evidence of flight presented in this case was permissible. The issue is barred from reconsideration. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3) (Rev.2007). 7. Failure to Present a Case in Defense. a. Abandoning Self-defense Strategy Mid-trial. ¶ 51. Spicer contends that his trial counsel were ineffective in settl[ing] on a self-defense theory of the case early on, ignoring other possible strategies and failing to conduct any investigation into the facts whatsoever. Spicer basically complains that his counsel were ineffective because Spicer exercised his right to remain silent and Johnny Butler did not testify as they wanted. The State correctly points out that Spicer is wrong in both instances. 52. First, Spicer cites Burns v. State, 813 So.2d 668 (Miss.2001). In Burns, this Court granted leave for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to present witnesses in mitigation, despite the defendant's acknowledgment during trial that it was his decision not to call witnesses. First, Burns is distinguishable because it considered counsel's failure to put on witnesses during the sentencing phase of trial. Further, in Burns, [t]he State argues that the decision not to call any witness was made by Burns himself. The trial court questioned Burns outside the presence of the jury and he acknowledged that he understood that he had the right to testify and the right to call witnesses. He stated that it was his ultimate decision not to present any evidence in mitigation. However, Burns has submitted an affidavit from one of his attorneys at trial who states that the lead attorney decided not to call any witnesses at the sentencing phase. (Emphasis added). ¶ 53. In the case sub judice, Spicer made the decision not to testify on his own behalf during the guilt phase, which was his right. Spicer acknowledged that it was his decision. In fact, an affidavit was presented to the trial court, signed by Spicer, acknowledging that his trial counsel advised him to take the stand. Spicer cannot now hold his attorneys responsible when it was his decision not to follow their advice. ¶ 54. As for Spicer's assertion that counsel was ineffective for not having any other witnesses, Spicer does not suggest who the other witnesses should have been or to what they would have testified other than to suggest that Johnny Butler should have been called to testify that he was going to fire Edmond Hebert and not Spicer. Spicer then asserts that the jury could have presumed that Hebert was angry. However, as the State points out, the record shows that the jury did hear from Butler on this point. During cross-examination by the defense, Butler testified as follows: Q. [MR. BARNETT:] Were they both good workers? A. Yes. Q. If youdo you recall ever making a statement to Mr. Spicer that he needed to get another way to work? A. I probably have, yes, sir. Q. What was the basis of that statement? A. I believe that for two weeks in a row there when I paid them, they were always late for work, and I justyou know, if he's got his own ride, he can't blame it on nobody else. Q. All right. So, at that the [sic] point in time, you were thinking about firing Mr. Hebert; am I correct? A. You could possibly say that, yes, sir. ¶ 55. Spicer has not shown his counsel to be deficient. This claim cannot pass the standard in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. b. Failure to Offer Evidence Negating Underlying Felony of Robbery. ¶ 56. Spicer next avers that his trial counsel were ineffective in failing to rehabilitate the testimony of Jerry Woodward, in failing to investigate or subpoena witnesses who could have proved that Spicer did not steal Hebert's vehicle and in failing to explore James Elder's testimony. As this Court stated on direct appeal, [e]ven if the jury believed Spicer had permission to use the truck on previous occasions, it seems unlikely that he had permission here because Hebert was deceased. Spicer, 921 So.2d at 314. Further, evidence of permission to use Hebert's' truck, which Spicer faults counsel for failing to procure, does nothing to prevent the jury from finding that Spicer robbed Hebert for the sword. There is evidence that [Spicer] stole the sword because he was in possession of it after Hebert's death and it had Hebert's blood on it. Id. Spicer's claim does not pass the standard set forth in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 8. Failure to Secure Proper Jury Instructions. a. Failure to Obtain a Lesser-included Offense Instruction. ¶ 57. Spicer faults counsel for failing to obtain a lesser-included-offense instruction. Trial counsel did present the trial court with two proposed jury instructions on a lesser included offense, and they were rejected. Spicer, 921 So.2d at 312-13. On appeal, this Court held that Spicer was not entitled to a lesser-included-offense jury instruction. Id. at 312-15. The underlying issue was addressed on the merits, and Spicer cannot show prejudice. Further, the underlying issue is now barred by res judicata and will not be reconsidered under the guise of ineffective assistance of counsel. Foster, 687 So.2d at 1129. b. Failure to Object to Instruction That Relieved State of Burden of Proving Every Element of the Offense. ¶ 58. Spicer asserts that trial counsel were ineffective in failing to, object to a jury instruction that, as he argues, improperly relieved the State of its burden of proving that Spicer had the intent to rob Hebert. This underlying substantive issue was raised on direct appeal, and this Court recognized that Spicer's counsel improperly preserved the objection at trial. Spicer, 921 So.2d at 316. However, the procedural bar notwithstanding, this Court did address the issue on the merits and found that the jury was properly instructed. Id. Because this Court already has decided that Spicer was not prejudiced, he cannot pass Strickland. This issue is without merit. 9. Failure to Object to Improper Aggravating Circumstances. ¶ 59. Spice avers that his attorneys were ineffective in failing to object to the Submission of the aggravating factor: The capital offense was committed for pecuniary gain during the course of a robbery. He asserts that this was error because these two aggravating factors are separate aggravating circumstances and they cannot be submitted to the jury together. He relies on Willie v. State, 585 So.2d 660, 681 (Miss.1991) and Jenkins v. State, 607 So.2d 1171, 1182 (Miss.1992). ¶ 60. The underlying, substantive issue was raised on direct appeal. This Court noted that counsel failed to object at trial and held the issue procedurally barred. Notwithstanding the procedural bar, this Court addressed the merits of the issue and rejected Spicer's reliance on Willie and Jenkins. Spicer, 921 So.2d at 324. This Court relied on Turner v. State, 732 So.2d 937 (Miss.1999), wherein we dealt with an argument similar to Spicer's and upheld Turner's conviction. ¶ 61. As the State properly points out, this Court's most recent decision on this exact issue can be found in Branch v. State, 882 So.2d 36 (Miss.2004), wherein this Court held: XIV. The robbery and pecuniary gain. ¶ 126. In this assignment of error, Branch asserts that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that The capital offense was committed for pecuniary gain during the course of a robbery. This, Branch contends, permitted the jury to give double weight to the motive for the robbery in reaching its penalty decision. ¶ 127. Not only is this issue procedurally barred for Branch's failure to raise this issue in the trial court, this issue is without merit. This exact instruction was found proper in Turner v. State, 732 So.2d 937, 954-55 (Miss.1999). See also Irving v. State, 618 So.2d 58 (Miss.1992). The argument that this instruction constitutes improper stacking has been rejected in numerous cases. Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 762-63 (Miss.1991); Nixon v. State, 533 So.2d 1078, 1097 (Miss.1987); Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445, 465 (Miss.1984); Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645, 650 (Miss.1983); Tokman v. State, 435 So.2d 664, 665 (Miss.1983); Jones v. State, 517 So.2d 1295, 1300 (Miss.1987), vacated on other grounds, 487 U.S. 1230, 108 S.Ct. 2891, 101 L.Ed.2d 925 (1988). Id. at 75. ¶ 62. Because the underlying issue has been found to be without merit, counsel cannot be held deficient for failing to object, nor can Spicer show prejudice.