Opinion ID: 1094862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Robbery & Grand Larceny as Aggravating Circumstances

Text: Cole argues that counsel's failure to object to the introduction of his prior convictions of grand larceny and simple robbery constituted ineffective assistance of counsel because the convictions were irrelevant and prejudicial. Conversely, we agree with the State that both convictions were introduced in support of two of the aggravating circumstances set out in the sentencing statute, (5)(a) and (5)(b). Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(a) defines the following aggravating circumstance: The capital offense was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment. Cole was serving a suspended sentence pursuant to his grand larceny conviction at the time he committed the murder. Such is considered a sentence of imprisonment. Jenkins v. State, 607 So.2d 1171, 1180 (Miss. 1992); Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1317, 1337 (Miss. 1987); Evans v. State, 422 So.2d 737, 741-42 (Miss. 1982). Thus, the conviction for grand larceny was relevant, and any objection thereto would have been futile. Counsel's failure to object did not amount to ineffectiveness. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(b) defines the following aggravating circumstance: The defendant was previously convicted of another capital offense or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person. Robbery is per se a crime of violence. Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239, 1268 (Miss. 1993). Once again, counsel's failure to object did not amount to ineffectiveness.