Opinion ID: 1809395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 26

Heading: Ineffective assistance of counsel during closing argument at the penalty phase.

Text: ¶ 66. Havard asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel during closing argument of the sentencing phase of the trial. Defense counsel stated, I mean, it's been obviously documented here that this young child died a tragic death at a very young age of six months. That is an aggravating circumstance, and Mr. Rosenblatt explained that to you. On direct appeal, Havard argued that this his counsel conceded the aggravating circumstance of Chloe's tender age and failed to argue mitigating circumstances. Havard now raises the same arguments via these post-conviction-relief proceedings. ¶ 67. This issue was presented to this Court on direct appeal and found to be without merit. Havard, 928 So.2d at 798. Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred by the doctrine of res judicata pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-39-21(3) (Rev.2007), which states: The doctrine of res judicata shall apply to all issues, both factual and legal, decided at trial and on direct appeal. ¶ 68. Havard has not demonstrated a novel claim or a sudden reversal of law relative to this issue which would exempt it from the procedural bar of res judicata pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-39-21(3) (Rev.2007). See also Lockett v. State, 614 So.2d 888 (Miss.1992) (citing Rideout v. State, 496 So.2d 667 (Miss.1986); Gilliard v. State, 446 So.2d 590 (Miss.1984)).