Opinion ID: 1103987
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Additional Time Between Culpability and Sentencing Phases.

Text: ¶ 63. Bell claims that a limited continuance was necessary between the guilt and sentencing phases of the trial, and that without such, counsel was unable to present an effective case during sentencing. Because the two phases are inherently different, Bell reasons that a continuance was necessary. Bell does not discuss how the lack of a continuance affected the defense. He emphasizes that in the decision from the direct appeal, the Court noted that the defense presented no real mitigating circumstances. Bell, 725 So.2d at 867. Countering, the State argues that this was not a complex case and therefore no continuance was needed. ¶ 64. Bell cites Robin E. Abram's article: A Capital Defendant's Right to a Continuance Between the Two Phases of a Death Penalty Trial, 64 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 579 (1989), cited in Pruett v. State, 574 So.2d 1342, 1348 (Miss.1990) (Anderson, J., dissenting). The article contends that the complexity of the legal rules governing both the guilt and penalty phases of capital trials complicates counsel's preparation and intensifies the need for time. See Abrams supra, at 581-82. Likewise, a continuance is necessary because the defendant, the jury, and defense counsel need time to recover emotionally from the capital conviction and to focus on the issue of sentencing. Id. Bell relies on precedent from other jurisdictions, such as South Carolina and Maryland, in which continuances are legislatively provided or available upon the request. See Md. Ann.Code Art. 27 § 413(a) (Supp.1988); S.C.Code § 16-3-20(B) (2002). ¶ 65. The guilty verdict was delivered at 3:30 p.m., then, following a brief recess, the sentencing phase begun and was completed by 7:30 p.m. Theoretically, counsel could have requested a continuance until the following morning. However, our Legislature has determined that: Upon conviction or adjudication of guilt of a defendant of capital murder or other capital offense, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death, life imprisonment without eligibility for parole, or life imprisonment. The proceeding shall be conducted by the trial judge before the trial jury as soon as practicable. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101. Furthermore, we have held: [I]t should be noted that this Court has repeatedly and consistently held that post-conviction relief in Mississippi is not granted upon facts and issues which could or should have been litigated at trial and on appeal. Smith v. State, 434 So.2d 212, 215 (Miss. 1983) (citing Callahan v. State, 426 So.2d 801 (Miss.1983); Bell v. Watkins, 381 So.2d 118 (Miss.1980); Auman v. State, 285 So.2d 146 (Miss.1973); Irving v. State, 194 So.2d 239 (Miss.1967); Gordon v. State, 160 So.2d 73 (Miss.1964); Kennard v. State, 246 Miss. 209, 148 So.2d 660 (1963); Rogers v. Jones, 240 Miss. 610, 128 So.2d 547 (1961); Goldsby v. State, 226 Miss. 1, 78 So.2d 762 (1955); Wetzel v. State, 225 Miss. 450, 76 So.2d 188 (1955)) (footnote omitted). This issue is without merit.