Opinion ID: 1689170
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether jackson received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Text: ¶ 8. Our standard of review for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a two-part test: the defendant must prove, under the totality of the circumstances, that (1) his attorney's performance was deficient and (2) the deficiency deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Hiter v. State, 660 So.2d 961, 965 (Miss.1995). This review is highly deferential to the attorney, with a strong presumption that the attorney's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Id. at 965. With respect to the overall performance of the attorney, counsel's choice of whether or not to file certain motions, call witnesses, ask certain questions, or make certain objections fall within the ambit of trial strategy and cannot give rise to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Cole v. State, 666 So.2d 767, 777 (Miss.1995). ¶ 9. Anyone claiming ineffective assistance of counsel has the burden of proving, not only that counsel's performance was deficient but also that he was prejudiced thereby. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Additionally, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for his attorney's errors, he would have received a different result in the trial court. Nicolaou v. State, 612 So.2d 1080, 1086 (Miss. 1992). Finally, the court must then determine whether counsel's performance was both deficient and prejudicial based upon the totality of the circumstances. Carney v. State, 525 So.2d 776, 780 (Miss.1988). ¶ 10. Jackson claims that the following instances demonstrate that he suffered ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial. First, Jackson claims the fact that he was under the influence of powerful narcotics was not sufficiently brought to the attention of the jury. Although Jackson concedes that his trial counsel did address the issue, he argues that it should have been better presented. Unlike Jackson, we find it easy to believe that Jackson's attorney might have declined to emphasize Jackson's drug abuse for tactical reasons and conclude that this issue falls squarely under the ambit of trial strategy. Furthermore, as the State properly notes, we have expressly rejected the idea that voluntary intoxication is a defense to murder in Greenlee v. State, 725 So.2d 816, 822-23 (Miss.1998), stating: Greenlee submits that while voluntary intoxication is not a defense to the crime of murder, the fact that the defendant was intoxicated negates the existence of the specific intent to commit the offense. Thus, Greenlee concludes that because he had taken three hits of LSD before the offense, he did not have the specific intent to commit murder. For this reason, Greenlee argues that the drug induced state he was in reduced murder to manslaughter and, therefore, he should have at least been granted the instruction so that this question could go to the jury. However, this argument is tantamount to a request for the jury to consider Greenlee's intoxication as a defense to the specific intent crime of murder. In McDaniel v. State, 356 So.2d 1151 (Miss.1978), this Court overruled this argument which had previously been successful. The Court stated: If a defendant, when sober, is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and the defendant voluntarily deprives himself of the ability to distinguish between right and wrong by reason of becoming intoxicated and commits an offense while in that condition, he is criminally responsible for such acts. Greenlee, 725 So.2d at 822-23 (Miss.1998)(internal citations omitted)(quoting McDaniel v. State, 356 So.2d 1151, 1161 (Miss.1978)). Jackson cites no authority for the proposition that his attorney should be considered ineffective for failing to bring to the jury's attention facts which should have had no bearing on the jury's verdict. ¶ 11. Next, Jackson again argues that the facts of this case support a claim of accident or misfortune, and he claims that his counsel's failure to suggest an accident instruction represents ineffective assistance. The analysis of Issue I is dispositive here. Jackson has failed utterly to establish a viable accident defense, and his attorney's failure to offer a groundless instruction cannot be viewed as ineffective assistance. ¶ 12. Finally, Jackson suggests that his attorney's failure to seek out and interview defense witnesses in preparation for the actual trial represents ineffective assistance. However, Jackson does not identify any witnesses who could have been called or how any witnesses testimony could have helped his case. Instead, Jackson relies on a number of cases holding that an attorney is ineffective when he fails to perform any pre-trial investigation or interview any witnesses at all. See generally Payton v. State, 708 So.2d 559 (Miss.1998); Woodward v. State, 635 So.2d 805, 813 (Miss.1993)(Smith, J. dissenting); Yarbrough v. State, 529 So.2d 659 (Miss. 1988); Neal v. State, 525 So.2d 1279 (Miss. 1987). ¶ 13. Assuming arguendo that Jackson's counsel did in fact fail to fully investigate and interview potential witnesses and that such a failure represented deficient performance, Jackson must still show that the deficiency prejudiced him at trial. Since Jackson admitted to every element of the crimes of which he stood accused except for intent, we cannot imagine what testimony could have possibly been elicited that might have led to an acquittal. Jackson has failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient, or that a different result was probable, but for the alleged deficient performance. Therefore, we conclude that the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the totality of the circumstances of this case must fail.