Opinion ID: 1769389
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Issue # 3: Whether Wanda's Counsel Provided Ineffective Assistance?

Text: Wanda contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel in view of the following: a) Counsel for the defendant should have changed venue to avoid the coverage in the local newspapers and no questions were asked of the jury to determine what specific knowledge they had of this incident. b) No Motion to Suppress was ever filed concerning the alleged written and oral statements of the defendant and they were allowed into evidence without a proper foundation of all the officers present. c) No expert witnesses were offered in this cause to collaborate [ sic ] the testimony of the defendant concerning the duress she was undergoing at the time of the alleged incidents. d) No objection was made to the comments of the [State] in closing arguments in calling the defendant a pervert. Appellant's Brief at 21.
The law recited in the recent case of Barnes v. State is instructive. 577 So.2d 840, 841-43 (Miss. 1991). To determine whether Wanda received ineffective assistance of counsel, Wanda must present sufficient evidence to meet the two-pronged Strickland test. Id. at 841 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984)). That is, Wanda must prove that, under the totality of the circumstances, prejudice resulted from a deficiency in her counsel's performance. Id. (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d at 693; Martin v. Maggio, 711 F.2d 1273, 1280 (5th Cir.1983); Wiley v. State, 517 So.2d 1373, 1378 (Miss. 1987)).
Application of law leads this Court to conclude that Wanda clearly failed to meet the Strickland test. Wanda simply cited four actions and inactions of her trial counsel without explaining or justifying her contention that they should be characterized as deficient and prejudicial. See Appellant's Brief at 21-22. Without more, this Court cannot conclude that Wanda proved that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. In sum, Wanda's contentions fail to meet the Strickland test and, therefore, this Court affirms on this issue.