Opinion ID: 1705889
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Consult With Spicer.

Text: ¶ 22. Spicer contends that his attorneys did not consult with him prior to trial. He builds this argument on Hurt's time sheet/billing statement. Spicer asserts that Hurt spent only 63.25 hours on Spicer's case prior to trial and that not one single hour was devoted to factual investigation of legal research. The State argues that relying on Hurt's billing records alone does not support Spicer's claim. Spicer had two attorneys. Barnett was Spicer's lead counsel during the trial. The State further argues that he was more likely to have been the attorney meeting with Spicer. Barnett was also the Public Defender for George County, and as a salaried public defender, Barnett would have no need to supply a billing statement to the trial court for payment. Spicer makes no assertion as to the number of hours Barnett spent on the case. ¶ 23. Additionally, it is apparent from the record that the defense had formed a strategy of self-defense as evidenced by much of the cross-examination of the State's witnesses and the jury instruction that the defense proffered. However, the strategy was undermined by Spicer's decision not to take the stand in his own defense, which undeniably is his right. The following dialogue took place at trial, outside the presence of the jury: BY MR. HURT: May it please the Court, we have advised the defendant that it would be in his best interest to testify in this case in his defense in order to assert the defense of self-defense. However, the defendant has told us that he does not wish to testify in his behalf, which, under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, is his legal right. We have also had him sign a document in the presence of the Circuit Clerk and Deputy Circuit Clerk, who is the bailiff, and also the Court Reporter, that we have advised him that it would be in his best interest to testify, and he has refused to do so. So, at this time, the defense rests. . . . . BY THE COURT: It is my duty, obviously, under these circumstances, Mr. Spicer, toanytime an accused on trial for a felony offense decides not to take the witness stand and testify in his own defense, it's my duty as the judge to make sure this is a decision made of your own accord, voluntarily, after full consideration and consultation with your attorney. That's my job. Okay? [SPICER]: Okay. BY THE COURT: Now, Mr. Hurt has just told me that you have decided not to take the witness stand and testify during the guilt phase of this particular trial. Is that correct? [SPICER]: Right. BY THE COURT: Is what he said correct, that it is your decision not to testify? [SPICER]: Yes, sir. BY THE COURT: And I don't need to get into any communications, you know, what you have been advised and what you haven't or anything between you two, but are you satisfied you have been fully advised of different factors and given good advice in regard to whether to testify and whether not to testify? [SPICER]: Yes. I understand completely. BY THE COURT: Do you feel that you have enough information, you have been sufficiently counseled in order to be able to make that decision? [SPICER]: Yes, sir. BY THE COURT: Do you understand what I'm asking you? [SPICER]: Um-hmm. BY THE COURT: Are you satisfied with the advice you have been given? [SPICER]: Yeah. BY THE COURT: You need to say yes, sir or no, sir. [SPICER]: Yes, sir. ¶ 124. The above dialogue is telling of two things. First, counsel did have a strategy in Spicer's case, which indicates that counsel had consulted with Spicer prior to trial in formulating a defense. Second, Spicer was satisfied with the advice of counsel. Spicer has not provided his own affidavit alleging that his attorneys did not consult with him, formulate a strategy, or investigate the events of the crime. Spicer's claim is without merit.