Opinion ID: 1837021
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: John Thacker

Text: ¶ 21. John Thacker (Thacker), Wiley's lifelong friend and his wife's uncle, could have testified as to Wiley's generous and kind character and about the time Wiley saved my life by riding up and slowing down Thacker's runaway horse. Again, Thacker's affidavit does not establish that he could have provided any relevant testimony not set out by other witnesses. ¶ 22. Wiley asserts [i]t was objectively deficient for counsel to fail to investigate and present this mitigation evidence, and to rely solely on the testimony of far less important figures such as Wiley's mother-in-law and several casual acquaintances. However, the record reflects that among the other witnesses called by the defense were Wiley's sons, Kelvin and Columbus; a sheriff's department employee who termed Wiley a model prisoner; a school employee; two childhood friends; a family friend who had known Wiley since childhood; an administrator; chaplain and records custodian from the Mississippi Department of Corrections; a neuropsychiatrist and a psychologist. Additionally, the record indicates that Wiley's children lived with his mother-in-law who also testified, a majority of the time after he and Diane separated and that she had known him since he was a child. ¶ 23. Wiley cites cases that found ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to present mitigation evidence of a nightmarish childhood, violent and unstable upbringing, head injuries as a child, limited schooling, etc. There is no suggestion that any significant evidence, such as a violent or unstable upbringing, was not introduced. The record reflects that evidence of all of the mitigating factors Wiley alludes to was introduced during the sentencing trial by other witnesses and that there was no need for cumulative testimony. ¶ 24. Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), Wiley must show (1) a deficiency of counsel's performance that is (2) sufficient to constitute prejudice to his defense. Additionally, Wiley is not constitutionally entitled to errorless counsel. Cabello v. State, 524 So.2d 313, 315 (Miss. 1988). There is also a presumption that counsel's decision not to call a particular witness is a strategic one. Strickland, 104 S.Ct at 2065-2066. See also Cole v. State, 666 So.2d 767, 777 (Miss.1995). Wiley has not proven his counsel was deficient or that he suffered any prejudice, and the record indicates this issue is without merit.