Opinion ID: 1788387
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defense of International Treaties

Text: ¶ 55. Jordan alleges that his attorneys were ineffective in failing to raise various international treaties as defenses to imposition of the death penalty. He cites the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the American Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and other treaties enacted by the United States Senate or signed by the President of the United States. He claims that those treaties are to be enforced under the supremacy clause and that they prohibit his execution. ¶ 56. In considering death penalty cases via direct appeal and post-conviction relief proceedings, we apply the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution and laws of the State of Mississippi, and case law as handed down by the United States Supreme Court and this Court. Of course, we also look to federal court decisions from this State and federal and state court cases from our sister states for persuasive guidance. On this note, however, we unhesitatingly acknowledge the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (March 1, 2005), where the Court in a 5-4 decision declared that death penalty imposition upon offenders who were under the age of 18 when the crimes were committed was violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to our federal constitution. In reaching this conclusion, the sharply divided Court relied in part on national and international studies, covenants and treaties. Such reliance generated scathing dissents from Justice O'Connor and Justice Scalia, with Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas joining Justice Scalia's dissent. However, in our case today, we note that Jordan's date of birth is December 25, 1976, and the date of these murders was October 5, 1995. Inasmuch as Jordan was 18 years of age  and only 81 days away from his 19th birthday  at the time of the brutal murders of Tony Roberts and 2-year old Codera Bradley, we decline to rely on international laws, covenants and treaties in determining whether the death penalty is appropriate. ¶ 57. Therefore, defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to raise claims under these various treaties, covenants and conventions, and Jordan's petition has failed to allege any actual prejudice in the failure to raise such claims. We find this issue to be without merit. Because Jordan has failed to meet the requirements of the Strickland test, he is entitled to no relief as to this issue.
¶ 58. Jordan claims that the trial court should have allowed him to delve into Frontrell Edwards's alleged intimidation or domination of Jordan. The trial court allowed Jordan's mother to testify that Edwards had once shot Jordan. However, the trial court ruled that Jordan's mother, Nannie Craft, could not testify further about the event because she had no firsthand knowledge of the shooting. Jordan also claims that the trial court should have allowed him to put on evidence that he suffered from several illnesses as a child. As this Court has previously stated, the trial court ruled that without some showing that the childhood illnesses had an impact on Jordan as an adult, the proposed testimony was irrelevant. ¶ 59. These claims are barred for failure to raise the claim on direct appeal of this case. No claim was presented to this Court on the basis of the trial court's sustaining of the objection to this line of questioning. Such a claim can not be raised for the first time on post-conviction review. See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1); Bishop v. State, 882 So.2d 135, 149 (Miss.2004); Grayson v. State, 879 So.2d 1008, 1020 (Miss.2004). By failing to present proof to support these assertions, Jordan's petition has failed to demonstrate cause and actual prejudice as required by Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21; therefore, the procedural bar is not waived. ¶ 60. Procedural bar aside, Jordan makes no argument under this issue, and he cites no authority. Thus, we decline to address these claims. Brown v. State, 798 So.2d 481, 497, 506 (Miss.2001) (citing Holland v. State, 705 So.2d 307, 329 (Miss. 1997)). See also Gary v. State, 760 So.2d 743, 754 (Miss.2000) (this Court may, at its discretion, refuse to review an assignment of error not supported by authority yet this is not an absolute bar). We find this issue to be without merit. ¶ 61. The trial court held a hearing on the issue of childhood illnesses. Finding that these illnesses did not affect Jordan during his adult life, the trial court found them to be irrelevant. We find this ruling to be proper. Also as previously stated, Jordan was able to argue that he was, at times, dominated by other people, especially Frontrell Edwards. Although we hold these claims are procedurally barred, they are likewise without merit.
¶ 62. Jordan claims that the State's theory at his trial conflicts with the State's theory at Edwards's later trial for the same two capital murders. During closing argument in the guilt phase of Jordan's trial, the District Attorney argued that this man right over here [Jordan] fired that fatal shot. Later, in Edwards's trial, the District Attorney argued that Edwards is responsible for both of these murders. Jordan claims that the theories conflict and that he was deprived of a fair trial and sentencing hearing. ¶ 63. This claim was not raised at trial or on direct appeal; therefore, this claim is barred from consideration for the first time on post-conviction review. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-21. See also Wiley v. State, 750 So.2d 1193, 1208 (Miss.1999). ¶ 64. Procedural bar aside, we find that the statements do not conflict. The statement that Jordan fired the shot that killed Roberts is consistent with the State's theory in Jordan's trial and with the evidence. Jordan admitted that he fired one shot at Roberts after Edwards shot him first. Jordan stated that his shot caused Roberts to fall. Roberts was shot twice in the head with only one of the wounds being fatal. That statement does not contradict the District Attorney's later argument that Edwards was responsible for both murders. In fact, both Edwards and Jordan were responsible for both murders by participating in the plan to rob and kill the victim in order to prevent later identification and by shooting at Roberts and disposing of the bodies. This argument does not demonstrate the cause and actual prejudice necessary to overcome the procedural bar to the consideration of this claim for the first time on post-conviction review. We find no merit in this issue.
¶ 65. Frontrell Edwards's trial commenced after Jordan's, and he was also convicted of two counts of capital murder and was sentenced to death. On appeal, this Court reversed the convictions and sentences on several bases and the matter was remanded to the circuit court for retrial. Edwards v. State, 737 So.2d 275 (Miss.1999). Without attaching any court records, affidavits or other proof as required by Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-9(1)(e), Jordan contends that Edwards entered into a plea agreement for a sentence of life without parole. Jordan claims that Edwards was the leader in the robbery scheme, that he had a motive and plan to kill Roberts, and that Jordan was an unwilling participant in the robbery and murder scheme. Therefore, he claims that he is less culpable than Edwards and that their sentences are disproportionate. However, Jordan's petition has failed to support his claim that he was not an active participant in these murders with the proof required by the post-conviction statutes. ¶ 66. First, we find that the proportionality question was decided in Jordan's direct appeal. There, this Court reviewed the proportionality of Jordan's death penalty and found that the sentence was not disproportionate when compared to other death penalty situations. Jordan, 728 So.2d at 1099-1100. Therefore, the issue of the proportionality of the sentence of death in this case is res judicata. See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3); Doss v. State, 882 So.2d 176 (Miss.2004); Bishop v. State, 882 So.2d 135 (Miss.2004) (relitigation of disproportionality argument barred by Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3)). ¶ 67. Alternatively, this issue is without merit. Jordan now argues that his sentence is disproportionate to the sentence ultimately imposed upon Frontrell Edwards. On direct appeal, this Court determined that Jordan was a major actor in this double murder. As previously stated, Jordan confessed to his actions in this case. He knew and approved of the plan to rob and kill a convenient gas station customer. He pointed out Roberts as a likely prospect. He had a pistol in his possession when he encountered Roberts and his helpless two-year old child. He fired at least one shot at Roberts, and he helped dispose of the body. There is very little evidence that Jordan was less than a willing accomplice in these crimes. ¶ 68. In McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court stated: McCleskey's argument that the Constitution condemns the discretion allowed decision makers in the Georgia capital sentencing system is antithetical to the fundamental role of discretion in our criminal justice system. Discretion in the criminal justice system offers substantial benefits to the criminal defendant. Not only can a jury decline to impose the death sentence, it can decline to convict or choose to convict of a lesser offense. Whereas decisions against a defendant's interest may be reversed by the trial judge or on appeal, these discretionary exercises of leniency are final and unreviewable. Similarly, the capacity of prosecutorial discretion to provide individualized justice is firmly entrenched in American law. As we have noted, a prosecutor can decline to charge, offer a plea bargain, or decline to seek a death sentence in any particular case. Of course, the power to be lenient [also] is the power to discriminate, but a capital punishment system that did not allow for discretionary acts of leniency would be totally alien to our notions of criminal justice. Id. at 311-12, 107 S.Ct. at 1777-78, 95 L.Ed.2d at 291 (citations & footnotes omitted). See also Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 750-51 (Miss.1991). The State is entitled to exercise some discretion in deciding against whom to pursue the death penalty. This Court has held that even though a co-defendant might have received a life sentence, there is no prohibition against another co-defendant being sentenced to death. Walker v. State, 671 So.2d 581 (Miss.1995); Mack v. State, 650 So.2d 1289 (Miss.1994); Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743 (Miss.1991); Culberson v. State, 379 So.2d 499 (Miss.1979). ¶ 69. In the federal statutory framework, there is a specific mitigating factor which states that the jury may consider whether [a]nother defendant or defendants, equally culpable in the crime, will not be punished by death. 18 U.S.C. § 3592(a)(4). Thus, in federal death penalty actions, the jury can consider whether some other defendant has escaped the death penalty and whether that entitles the subject defendant to any leniency. There is, however, no requirement that all equally culpable defendants receive the same punishment. ¶ 70. Jordan relies on Randall v. State, 806 So.2d 185 (Miss.2001), where this Court found that the defendant's death sentence was disproportionate. There, five defendants robbed Eugene Daniels and killed him in the course of the robbery at his apartment. The State was unable to prove definitively which defendant was the actual triggerman. The jury found that Randall had contemplated that lethal force would be employed but the jury did not find that Randall actually killed the victim, attempted to kill him, or intended that a killing take place. Id. at 233-34. In contrast, Jordan's jury found that Jordan had attempted to kill Roberts; that Jordan had intended that the killing of Roberts take place; and, that Jordan contemplated that lethal force would be employed. The jury further found that Jordan intended that the killing of Codera Bradley take place and that he had contemplated prior to the killing that lethal force would be employed. ¶ 71. Under the circumstances here, we find that the lone fact that Jordan received the death penalty while Edwards did not is insufficient to establish a disproportionate or constitutionally excessive sentence. After a full review of the record and after considering all of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented at trial, and after a comparison with the circumstances of other capital murder cases, we are of the opinion that imposition of the death penalty in Jordan's case is not disproportionate or excessive. Thus, this issue is without merit.
¶ 72. On June 19, 2003, Jordan filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief. Jordan's amended petition is based on Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). ¶ 73. In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), the United States Supreme Court held that the execution of mentally retarded inmates amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and was therefore prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. In his first supplement to the petition for post-conviction relief, Jordan alleges that he has suffered from mental retardation and its attendant adaptive deficits since early childhood. The only indications of mental retardation he provides are that his childhood development was slow, that he did not learn to walk until he was two years old, that he suffered from meningitis as a child which might have caused brain injury; and, that he was placed in special education classes in school. None of those allegations are supported by any affidavits of mental health professionals or by any documentary or medical evidence. Based on these allegations alone, Jordan seeks a hearing on whether he is mentally retarded. ¶ 74. On May 20, 2004, we announced the requirements for obtaining a hearing to determine whether a capital defendant is mentally retarded in Chase v. State, 873 So.2d 1013 (Miss.2004). This Court held: With the sole exception discussed below, no defendant may be granted a hearing on the issue of Eighth Amendment protection from execution, due to alleged mental retardation unless, prior to the expiration of the deadline set by the trial court for filing motions, the defendant shall have filed with the trial court a motion, seeking such hearing. The defendant must attach to the motion an affidavit from at least one expert, qualified as described above, who opines, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that: (1) the defendant has a combined Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 75 or below, and; (2) in the opinion of the expert, there is a reasonable basis to believe that, upon further testing, the defendant will be found to be mentally retarded, as defined herein. Upon receiving such motion with attached affidavit, and any response filed by the State, the trial court shall provide a reasonable amount of time for testing the defendant for mental retardation. Thereafter, the trial court shall set a hearing on the motion, and the matter shall proceed. Id. at 1029. We further held: We hold that no defendant may be adjudged mentally retarded for purposes of the Eighth Amendment, unless such defendant produces, at a minimum, an expert who expresses an opinion, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that: 1. The defendant is mentally retarded, as that term is defined by the American Association on Mental Retardation and/or The American Psychiatric Association; 2. The defendant has completed the Minnesota Multi phasic Personality Inventory-II (MMPI-II) and/or other similar tests, and the defendant is not malingering. Such expert must be a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist, qualified as an expert in the field of assessing mental retardation, and further qualified as an expert in the administration and interpretation of tests, and in the evaluation of persons, for purposes of determining mental retardation. Upon meeting this initial requirement to go forward, the defendant may present such other opinions and evidence as the trial court may allow pursuant to the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. Id. On August 26, 2004, this Court further addressed the question of what is required in order to obtain a hearing under Atkins in Wiley v. State, 890 So.2d 892 (Miss. 2004). This Court in Wiley held: This Court spoke of evolving standards in Chase, 873 So.2d at 1024. We now find it necessary to expand on the procedure to be used in reaching a determination of mental retardation by holding that this Court will consider the entire record before it in deciding whether to grant an Atkins hearing. The standard set out by this Court in Chase, 873 So.2d at 1028, and cited herein establishes the minimum requirements for a person to be adjudged mentally retarded. This Court said [n]o defendant may be adjudged mentally retarded... unless that defendant produces an expert opinion that the defendant is retarded and has completed the MMPI-II. That does not mean that every defendant who submits an expert opinion to this Court and has completed the MMPI-II will be adjudged mentally retarded for the purposes of Atkins. Further, Wiley does not even assert that he has completed the MMPI-II or some similar test to show that he is not malingering. There is a mention of the MMPI-II in the 1987 affidavit of Dr. Fox, but nothing in this most recent motion. 890 So.2d at 897-98. ¶ 75. Jordan's Atkins claim is unsupported by any affidavits or records indicating that he has an I.Q. of less than 76. Further, there is no indication that he has completed the MMPI-II. Jordan's petition has failed to support his claim of retardation under the precedent announced in Chase; therefore, Jordan is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of mental retardation. ¶ 76. Jordan also claims that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), requires that the jury be allowed to determine whether he is mentally retarded. On the same day that the petitioner filed the amended petition raising the Ring claim, this Court decided this same issue in Russell v. State, 849 So.2d 95 (Miss.2003). There, the Court stated that [w]e find that not being mentally retarded is not an aggravating factor necessary for imposition of the death penalty, and Ring has no application to an Atkins determination. Id. at 148. This precise issue has previously been decided by this Court adversely to Jordan's position, and we rely on the previous holding. ¶ 77. Jordan also claims that the Ring decision and its predecessor Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), require a new trial because the aggravating factors were not included in the indictment. As with the prior issue, this Court has addressed these identical claims in a previous decision. In Berry v. State, 882 So.2d 157 (Miss.2004), this Court determined that Ring and Apprendi have no applicability to Mississippi's capital murder sentencing scheme. Id. at 172. This issue is thus without merit.
¶ 78. Jordan argues that lethal injection causes undue suffering and lingering death. He claims that the unnecessary infliction of pain and the prolonged period of pain experienced by the condemned person violates evolving standards of decency and amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Jordan failed to make any claim relating to the method of execution at trial or on direct appeal. Therefore, this claim is barred for consideration for the first time on application for leave to seek post-conviction relief. See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1); Bishop v. State, 882 So.2d 135, 149 (Miss.2004); Grayson v. State, 879 So.2d 1008, 1020 (Miss.2004). Notwithstanding the procedural bar, this issue is without merit. ¶ 79. In support of his allegations, Jordan cites only Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 124 S.Ct. 2117, 158 L.Ed.2d 924 (2004). At the time of the filing of Jordan's amended petition, the U.S. Supreme Court had granted certiorari in Nelson. Since then, the opinion has been issued. In Nelson, an Alabama death row inmate sought to file a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging Alabama's proposed lethal injection procedure. Nelson had vein damage due to years of drug use and lethal injection by conventional needle procedures would not work on his veins. He filed a section 1983 action challenging the cut down injection procedure in which a vein in his arm or leg would be catheterized prior to the legal injection. The lower courts determined that section 1983 was not a proper vehicle to challenge the cut down procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that section 1983 was available in the petitioner's attempts to gain injunctive relief. Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 124 S.Ct. 2117, 158 L.Ed.2d 924 (2004). Notably, the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of lethal injection or even on whether the proposed cut down procedure amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The decision is merely procedural and is therefore inapplicable here. ¶ 80. Jordan fails to support his claim that lethal injection is a cruel and unusual method of execution with any sworn proof as is required by Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-9(1)(e). This Court has also recently decided that Mississippi's lethal injection procedure does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment and is not a constitutional deprivation. Russell, 849 So.2d at 144-45. We find this issue to be without merit.
¶ 81. Jordan alleges that Mississippi's capital sentencing scheme creates a substantial risk that death will be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner on a defendant convicted of felony murder. Jordan does not specifically argue any deficiencies in Mississippi's capital punishment framework. Jordan failed to make any claim relating to the capital sentencing scheme at trial or on direct appeal. Therefore, this claim is barred for consideration for the first time on this post-conviction motion. See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1); Bishop v. State, 882 So.2d 135, 149 (Miss.2004); Grayson v. State, 879 So.2d 1008, 1020 (Miss.2004). ¶ 82. Procedural bar aside, we find no constitutional deficiencies in Miss.Code Ann. §§ 99-19-101 et seq. We have held that the Mississippi capital murder scheme is not unconstitutional because the underlying felony is used both to elevate the crime to capital murder, and also used later as an aggravating circumstance. West v. State, 725 So.2d 872, 894 (Miss. 1998); Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1260-61 (Miss.1995). Therefore, this issue is without merit, and Jordan is entitled to no relief.
¶ 83. Jordan alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to give certain proposed defense instructions. This claim could have been raised on direct appeal and is procedurally barred in these post-conviction relief proceedings. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1); Bishop v. State, 882 So.2d 135, 149 (Miss.2004); Grayson v. State, 879 So.2d 1008, 1020 (Miss.2004). Furthermore, Jordan cites no authority to support the claim that these instructions should have been given. In Puckett v. State, 879 So.2d 920 (Miss.2004), this Court held that issues unsupported by authority were considered abandoned by the petitioner. Jordan has shown neither cause or actual prejudice in any attempt to overcome the bar to the consideration of the merits on this claim. ¶ 84. Nevertheless, we find the claim to be without merit. After a review of all of the instructions, we find that the jury was properly instructed in the sentencing phase and that the proposed instructions were properly refused. ¶ 85. Jordan first contends Instruction D-4-S [4] was improperly denied. This instruction deals with aggravating factors outweighing mitigating factors. This Court has held that a capital defendant is not entitled to an instruction stating that the aggravating circumstances must outweigh the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not the burden on the weighing process. The statute only requires the jury to find that the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating circumstances. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101(2)(c); Edwards v. State, 737 So.2d 275 (Miss.1999); Berry v. State, 703 So.2d 269 (Miss.1997). ¶ 86. As to instruction D-7-S, which states that each individual juror must find beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the only appropriate punishment, we find this instruction was also properly refused by the trial court. We have held that a defendant is not entitled to an instruction informing the jury that it must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that death is the only appropriate penalty. The statute merely requires that (1) a unanimous finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the existence of one or more of the aggravating circumstances; (2) there are insufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh the aggravating circumstances; and, (3) a unanimous finding that the defendant should suffer death. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-103. Simmons v. State, 805 So.2d 452 (Miss.2001); Williams v. State, 684 So.2d 1179 (Miss.1996). ¶ 87. As to instruction D-8-S, this instruction would have informed the jury that Jordan will never be eligible for pardon or parole. In addition to being a misstatement of law as worded, this instruction was repetitive because the Court's instruction, Instruction C-2-S, fully informed the jury of its sentencing options. Therefore, the jury was fully informed through the instructions that it could sentence Jordan to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or any type of early release. In addition to being procedurally barred, this issue is without merit, and Jordan is entitled to no relief on this claim.
¶ 88. Jordan alleges that group voir dire, as opposed to individual voir dire, created a climate in which petitioner was unable to discern jurors' true feelings and predilections and prevented the selection of a fair and impartial jury. This issue could have been raised at trial and on direct appeal and is therefore barred here. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21; Bishop v. State, 882 So.2d 135, 149 (Miss.2004). ¶ 89. Notwithstanding the procedural bar, we find the issue to be without merit. Jordan was allowed to interview several panel members in an individual setting when their answers to questions required sensitive treatment. Jordan's claim regarding the manner in which voir dire was conducted is without merit.
¶ 90. Jordan next alleges that Miss.Code Ann. § 13-5-1, which requires jurors to be twenty-one years of age or older, deprives him of his right to a jury of his peers. Jordan was eighteen years old at the time of the murders. First, this issue could have been raised at trial and on direct appeal and is therefore barred here. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1); Bishop v. State, 882 So.2d 135, 149 (Miss.2004). Second, Jordan cites no authority here in support of his claim. Because Jordan's petition fails to demonstrate cause and actual prejudice to overcome this bar, this claim is barred from consideration. ¶ 91. Notwithstanding the procedural bar, this Court has repeatedly rejected this argument, most recently in Howell v. State, 860 So.2d 704, 723-24 (Miss.2003), certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted, 543 U.S. 440, 125 S.Ct. 856, 160 L.Ed.2d 873 (2005), and has held the provisions of Miss.Code Ann. § 13-5-1 are constitutional. Therefore, this issue is without merit, and Jordan is entitled to no relief on this claim.
¶ 92. As we have found find no error in the guilt phase, we necessarily find no cumulative error requiring post-conviction relief. If there is no reversible error in any part, so there is no reversible error to the whole. McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 136 (Miss.1987). See also Byrom v. State, 863 So.2d 836, 847 (Miss. 2003); Caston v. State, 823 So.2d 473, 509 (Miss.2002); Hicks v. State, 812 So.2d 179, 195 (Miss.2002). Therefore, this issue is without merit.
¶ 93. As we have found no error in the penalty phase, we necessarily find no cumulative error requiring post-conviction relief. If there is no reversible error in any part, so there is no reversible error to the whole. McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 136 (Miss.1987). See also Byrom v. State, 863 So.2d 836, 847 (Miss.2003); Caston v. State, 823 So.2d 473, 509 (Miss.2002); Hicks v. State, 812 So.2d 179, 195 (Miss. 2002). Therefore, this issue is without merit.