Opinion ID: 1810649
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to conduct effective opening statement

Text: ¶ 63. Crawford first claims that counsel conceded guilt and, therefore, was ineffective in his opening statement. However, Crawford's version of the facts is incorrect. The record reflects that counsel conceded underlying facts, yet at all times argued that Crawford was not guilty by reason of insanity. This Court has recognized the strategic prudence of admitting underlying facts while denying guilt and found that such conduct does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See Evans v. State, 725 So.2d 613, 706-07, ¶¶ 441-48 (Miss.1997); Wiley v. State, 517 So.2d 1373, 1382 (Miss.1987). ¶ 64. In addition, Crawford claims that he was denied a fundamental right to present a portion of his own opening statement. However, Crawford never alleges that he would have done so if given the option. He simply states that this right was never explained to him. [8] As such, without even addressing the possible ineffective assistance issues, this portion of the claim is without merit.