Opinion ID: 1680540
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Object to Comment on Petitioner's Exercise of His Privilege Against Self-incrimination.

Text: ¶ 22. Underwood did not testify at the trial nor did the defense counsel call any witnesses during the guilt phase of the trial. During closing arguments, the prosecution stated: do not divert yourselves from the uncontradicted facts that came into this courtroom from those 15 witnesses who came in here and from witnesses who, now, they put on trial. ¶ 23. Underwood argues that this statement brought attention to the fact he did not testify, in violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965). Therefore, defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object or move for mistrial during the prosecution's closing arguments. It is also argued that failure to raise this issue on appeal also constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Since the issue of the prosecution's closing arguments was not brought at trial or on appeal, the substance of this claim is procedurally barred. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1) (Supp.2004) provides: Failure by a prisoner to raise objections, defenses, claims, questions, issues or errors either in fact or law which were capable of determination at trial and/or on direct appeal, regardless of whether such are based on the laws and the Constitution of the state of Mississippi or of the United States, shall constitute a waiver thereof and shall be procedurally barred, but the court may upon a showing of cause and actual prejudice grant relief from the waiver. However, we will address the issue of ineffective counsel as it pertains to the claim. The State cites Howell v. State, 860 So.2d 704 (Miss.2003), regarding claims based upon comments on the failure to testify. Howell notes that attorneys are given wide latitude in developing their closing arguments and there is an inherent difference between a comment on the defendant's failure to testify and a comment on the failure to put on a successful defense. Id. at 751-52. The State charges that the comment was nothing more than a comment on the lack of defense so it was not objectionable. ¶ 24. The prosecution's statement during closing arguments was merely a comment on the State's witnesses, their testimony and the lack of defense put on by their opponent. There is no mention of Underwood at all. On this issue, Underwood again has failed to establish evidence of deficient performance by his defense counsel or a resulting prejudice. Therefore, this issue is without merit and fails.