Opinion ID: 1689027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: was there ineffective assistance of counsel?

Text: ¶ 24. Smiley asserts that he was the victim of ineffective assistance of counsel based upon three instances: A) when his trial counsel did not articulate in the record a specific reason in support of his motion for continuance, B) when his trial counsel did not request an instruction be given to the jury regarding Smiley's right not to testify, and C) when his trial counsel did not object to the prosecution's comments about the firearm during closing arguments. ¶ 25. This Court has articulated the standard for making a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel: In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove (1) that his attorney's overall performance was deficient and (2) that the deficient performance, if any, was so substantial as to prejudice the defendant and deprive him of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Furthermore, there is a strong but rebuttable presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Walters v. State, 720 So.2d 856, 868 (Miss.1998). To overcome this presumption, [t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Schmitt v. State, 560 So.2d 148, 154 (Miss.1990). A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. Only where it is reasonably probable that, but for the attorney's errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different will this Court find the counsel's performance was deficient. Id. Gary v. State, 760 So.2d 743, 753 (Miss. 2000). ¶ 26. We address each of Smiley's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel individually.
¶ 27. Smiley contends that he was the victim of ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to articulate in the record a specific reason to support his motion for continuance when he did not file written affidavits for the two absent witnesses. On the morning of the trial, M.A. Bass, serving as Smiley's attorney, asked that a motion for continuance be granted because two key witnesses he intended to examine were not available. At that time Bass was under the impression that the two witnesses, Smiley's aunt and cousin, were in St. Dominic Hospital in Jackson. After the State explained to the trial court that one of the witnesses, Smiley's aunt, had provided a doctor's excuse detailing her nervous condition that would adversely affect her should she be forced to testify, Bass reluctantly determined that he could get her statements in through comments she had made to Officer Milton Twiner. The record does not contain any testimony from Twiner. ¶ 28. It was later determined by the trial court that the witnesses were not hospitalized, but had left for Georgia. Bass then presented an impassioned plea to the trial court to grant his motion for continuance asserting that Smiley's aunt and cousin were key witnesses. After hearing from the State, the trial court reminded Bass of the leniency that had been shown Smiley previously regarding continuances for unavailable witnesses and that there was no notice of these witnesses being unavailable until the morning of the trial. The trial court then overruled the motion for continuance. ¶ 29. Smiley bases his contention of ineffective assistance of counsel on the fact that Bass did not provide affidavits explaining the expected testimony for the two missing witnesses as is required pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 99-15-29. While the record is not specific, it appears that Bass may have been caught by surprise when the witnesses failed to appear at the beginning of trial. Certainly, if he was not informed of their being in the hospital until just before trial, he can hardly be expected to do more than make an oral motion for continuance on such short notice. The trial court in denying the motion stated, Well, we have been pretty lenient with the defendant thus far in granting his continuances based on the fact that witnesses were unavailable and so forth, but there comes a time, counsel, when we have to try a case.... Clearly, the trial court did not deny the motion for continuance based upon Bass's failure to supply written affidavits, but instead because the trial court felt that, considering the previous continuances, it was time for the case to move forward. Even if Bass's failure to provide the trial court written affidavits to support his motion for continuance could be termed as deficient, it was not so deficient that it resulted in prejudice to Smiley. This claim is without merit.