Opinion ID: 1702221
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Counsel's Duty to Investigate and Present Mitigating Evidence

Text: ¶ 12. Bishop argues that counsels' failure to conduct an adequate and sufficient investigation for purposes of mitigation and their failure to present mitigating evidence resulted in his suffering from the ineffective assistance of counsel. Bishop contends that his trial counsel had a duty to investigate his mental illness and possible mental retardation and to present this mitigating evidence. Bishop alleges that there was an abundance of relevant, significant mitigating evidence which could have been obtained from his family members, but his counsel failed to interview them. ¶ 13. The record reveals that Bishop instructed his counsel not to oppose the death penalty in the event of a guilty verdict and waived sentencing by the jury. [5] On direct appeal, Bishop argued that the trial court erred in allowing him to waive sentencing by the jury. This Court thoroughly evaluated that issue on direct appeal and included, in the opinion, a lengthy colloquy between the trial court, Bishop and his trial counsel. Bishop, 812 So.2d at 944-47. After the State presented the aggravating factors and circumstances, the record further reveals the following regarding mitigation evidence: THE COURT: All right. Anything to be offered at this time by the defendant? MR. DANIELS: Your Honor, in accordance with our client's wishes, we offer nothing in mitigation . We do, however, object to all of the aggravating circumstances as cited by the State here today on the grounds that they are in violation of the Mississippi Constitution, the United States Constitution, and deprive Mr. Bishop of the right to due process, equal protection under the laws. That is the basis of our objection to those  each of those aggravators. THE COURT: Very well. Mr. Weddle? MR. WEDDLE: Your Honor, would the Court, for the record, make an inquiry unto Mr. Bishop as to whether he wishes to offer any mitigating circumstances? THE COURT: Mr. Bishop, at this stage of this second phase, you have the right to offer any anything you desire in mitigation . I'll hear from you at this time if you desire to testify. DEFENDANT BISHOP: Yes, sir, your Honor. THE COURT: Please stand and consider yourself under the oath that's been administered. DEFENDANT BISHOP: Can I say something to Mr. Gentry's family? THE COURT: I'll give you that opportunity later. Not at this moment. You can tell me any mitigating circumstances you desire . DEFENDANT BISHOP: No, sir, I do not. THE COURT: You understand you have the right to do that? DEFENDANT BISHOP: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And you understand I'll consider whatever you say? DEFENDANT BISHOP: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And you don't desire to offer any mitigating facts or circumstances whatsoever? DEFENDANT BISHOP: No, sir . THE COURT: Very well. The defendant rests? MR. DANIELS: The defendant rests. (emphasis added). Finally, after the trial judge read his verdict, he gave Bishop the opportunity to address the court. Bishop stated the following: DEFENDANT BISHOP: I just want to say to James there, I'm sorry for what happened to Mark. Mark was my friend. You know, I  I thought Mark needed his ass kicked. I did. I didn't know Jessie was gonna go all out like that. Mark was a good man. I mean, he was straight up. He was cool. Mark's in heaven right now. I ain't never gonna ask Mark to forgive me for what I did, for my part in it. I ain't never gonna ask God to forgive me. So you ain't got to worry about me ever seeing Mark. I ain't going to heaven; I won't allow it. For what I did, I deserve to die. I ain't gonna ask this Court to spare my life and let me grow old . I ain't gonna do it. Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir? DEFENDANT BISHOP: These people here, some of them would like to kill me. They can't. They don't have that authority. If they did, they'd be in the same position that I'm in right now. But you do. You've got that authority. I mean, look at them. They would like to see, you know  their son was killed, you know. I played a part in that. If I hadn't did what I did, Mark would still be here, he'd still be alive right now. So I'm asking you to do what they can't do, kill me for what I done. I deserve it. I know it. I want you to sentence me to death . That's it. THE COURT: Mr. Weddle, anything you need to add? MR. WEDDLE: Nothing further, your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Daniels? MR. DANIELS: No, your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Bishop, I'm gonna grant your wish. DEFENDANT BISHOP: Thank you. (emphasis added). ¶ 14. In his petition, Bishop argues that his counsel were deficient in failing to investigate and interview family members. As pointed out in the State's response, Bishop failed to attach any affidavits in support of his petition. In his reply, Bishop has included the affidavits of his mother, other family members, and his ex-wife to support his argument. [6] However, the quantity and quality of possible mitigation evidence is irrelevant based on Bishop's instructions to his defense attorneys. Bishop's counsel did all that they could, within the limitations placed on them by Bishop. Witnesses were not called, and mitigation evidence was not presented pursuant to Bishop's specific instructions. Because defense counsel acted in accord with Bishop's instructions, their performance was not deficient. ¶ 15. In evaluating a similar ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the Fifth Circuit held that counsel is not ineffective for failing to present any evidence at the punishment phase, pursuant to his client's instructions. Clark v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 273, 283-84 (5th. Cir.2000). In that case, Clark had been convicted of capital murder in Texas. In his federal habeas corpus proceedings, he argued that his trial counsel's failure to present any evidence during the punishment phase constituted constructive denial of counsel and was presumed prejudicial. Id. The Fifth Circuit held that Clark himself testified that he made the decision not to call any witnesses after talking with his attorneys the day before. `[M]eaningful discussion with one's client' is one of the `cornerstones of effective assistance of counsel.' Id. (quoting Martin v. Maggio, 711 F.2d 1273, 1280 (5th Cir.1983)). ¶ 16. In another case handed down later the same year, the Fifth Circuit reached the same result. In Dowthitt v. Johnson, 230 F.3d 733 (5th Cir.2000), another Texas death penalty case, Dowthitt argued his counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigation evidence via his family members during the punishment phase of his trial. The Fifth Circuit held The state habeas court found that Dowthitt did not want any of his family testifying on his behalf. Counsel will not be deemed ineffective for following their client's wishes, so long as the client made an informed decision. See Autry v. McKaskle, 727 F.2d 358, 361 (5th Cir.1984) (By no measure can ... [the defendant] block his lawyer's efforts and later claim the resulting performance was constitutionally deficient.). 230 F.3d at 748. ¶ 17. The record in this matter is clear. Bishop was thoroughly advised by his defense counsel and the trial court of the consequences of his decision. Bishop blocked his counsels' efforts and cannot not claim deficient performance. Clark, 227 F.3d at 284; Dowthitt, 230 F.3d at 748. See also Williams v. State, 722 So.2d 447, 450 (Miss.1998). Counsels' performance was not deficient pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. at 2064-65. ¶ 18. Bishop additionally argues that counsel was ineffective in failing to perform an adequate investigation, pursuant to Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). Affidavits from Bishop's mother, aunt, brother and ex-wife, all dated after the State filed its response, were included with Bishop's reply. Each of these affiants state that Bishop's trial attorneys either did not speak with them at all or only spoke with them briefly. Each state they would have testified for Bishop and presented mitigating evidence, had they been asked. The State included affidavits from both of Bishop's trial counsel in its response. In his affidavit, John Weddle stated that he personally interviewed members of Bishop's family, including Bishop's mother and aunt, and was ready to offer mitigating evidence, but Bishop prevented him from doing so. In his affidavit, David Daniels stated the following: I conducted investigation into Mr. Bishop's childhood and had witnesses ready to testify to his traumatic and neglected childhood. These witnesses came from the State of Texas for the purpose of testifying on behalf of the Defendant. Further, I had acquired Mr. Bishop's medical records from his previous place of incarceration, which included evidence of mental instability, hallucinations, and depression. Against my advice, Mr. Bishop elected to forego presenting mitigation evidence. Mr. Bishop, of average intelligence, was informed by the trial judge that the Court would consider anything Mr. Bishop desired to present in mitigation, yet he remained steadfast in his desire to forego a sentencing hearing, and mitigation presentation. ¶ 19. This case is clearly distinguishable from the facts in Wiggins. Wiggins's background can only be described as horrific. He was starved, neglected, beaten, abused, and raped for most of his childhood, and he had a diminished mental capacity. Despite all of that, Wiggins had no criminal history prior to the murder. Wiggins, 123 S.Ct. at 2533, 2537. From the affidavits submitted by Bishop, his childhood was difficult and he had emotional problems, however, his background does not rise to the same level as Wiggins's. ¶ 20. Bishop has not submitted sufficient evidence of a breach of the duty of counsel to investigate and present mitigation evidence as described by the United States Supreme Court in Wiggins v. Smith.  Simmons v. State, 869 So.2d 995, 1004 (Miss.2004). Finally, even if additional mitigation evidence had been discovered, pursuant to Bishop's instructions, it could not be presented during the sentencing phase of the trial. Bishop cannot show that counsels' performance was deficient or that such deficiency prejudiced him. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064.