Opinion ID: 1135905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Procedural Bar-

Text: Dunn argues that the trial court erred in relieving counsel from responsibility of representing him at trial and erred in appointing Dunn as his own counsel. Dunn claims he never requested to represent himself. However, as the trial proceeded with the two attorneys at counsel table taking a participatory role in the trial, Dunn never raised an objection or voiced his opposition to what was taking place. He sat idly by, remaining silent, and watched it take place. Under Mississippi law, an appellant is not entitled to raise a new issue on appeal, since to do so prevents the trial court from having an opportunity to address the alleged error. Crowe v. Smith, 603 So.2d 301, 305 (Miss. 1992); see Duplantis v. State, 644 So.2d 1235, 1247 (Miss. 1994). The State recognizes this Court's reluctance to apply a procedural bar to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 837 (Miss. 1983). There the Court stated that fundamental rights were exceptions to the rule that questions not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Id. In Read, this Court noted that the failure to assign the lack of effective assistance of counsel at trial was not a procedural bar to the subsequent raising of the question of ineffective counsel either on appeal or in subsequent post-conviction relief proceedings. Smith v. State, 434 So.2d 212, 218 (Miss. 1983). This Court's holding in Read is controlling, which means there is no procedural bar to an appellant raising for the first time on appeal that his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment was denied. Therefore, the State's first argument is without merit.