Opinion ID: 1847165
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel

Text: ¶ 9. When faced with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, this Court employs the two-prong analysis of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984),focusing on (1) whether counsel's performance was deficient, and if so, (2) whether the deficient performance was prejudicial to the defendant. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-96, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Knight v. State, 577 So.2d 392, 394 (Miss.1991); McQuarter v. State, 574 So.2d 685, 687 (Miss.1990); Alexander v. State, 503 So.2d 235, 240 (Miss.1987); Lambert v. State, 462 So.2d 308, 316 (Miss.1984); and Thames v. State, 454 So.2d 486, 487 (Miss.1984). The burden to demonstrate both prongs is on the defendant, whom faces a strong but rebuttable presumption that counsel's performance falls within the broad spectrum of reasonable professional assistance. McQuarter, 574 So.2d at 687. There is no constitutional right to errorless assistance of counsel. Foster v. State, 687 So.2d 1124, 1130 (Miss.1996). Hence, this Court employs the totality of the circumstances to ascertain whether counsel's performance was both deficient and prejudicial. Carney v. State, 525 So.2d 776, 780 (Miss. 1988); Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 839 (Miss.1983). In this Court, [j]udicial scrutiny of counsel's performance [is] highly deferential. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Rushing v. State, 711 So.2d 450, 457 (Miss.1998). Hence, solely where there is a reasonable probability that without counsel's errors the outcome of the trial would have been different will this Court find ineffective representation. Reed v. State, 536 So.2d 1336, 1339 (Miss. 1988); and Dickey v. State, 662 So.2d 1106, 1109 (Miss.1995). ¶ 10. O'Halloran first argues that trial counsel dedicated insufficient time by spending only 39.70 hours on the case from May 17, 1995 to the date of verdict and sentencing. Yet, O'Halloran fails to consider that Attorney Joseph Gautier worked on the case prior to and during Attorney Don Smith's appointment as co-counsel. Further, Gautier sought Smith's appointment as co-counsel, thus displaying endeavor to put multiple legal minds to work for the best interests of O'Halloran. Such behavior is diligent and foresightful, not deficient. ¶ 11. O'Halloran next argues that counsel was ineffective in its treatment of the cause of death sub-issue. Defense counsel did not cross-examine Dr. McGarry regarding whether the contact wound was the fatal shot. Further, counsel neither called witnesses to establish the height of Ken Tolbert or O'Halloran nor to testify to the trajectories of the different bullets and relative shooting positions. Yet, there is no error. The contact bullet in itself is fatal. Once a party chooses to shoot the victim with the muzzle against the victim's forehead, it matters not which bullet was fired first. Intent is evident. As to the heights of Tolbert and O'Halloran, those were available to the jury in exhibits S-2, O'Halloran's Personal History/Interview Log, and S-4, Tolbert's Missing Person Report. Regarding the non-attainment of trajectories, defense counsel did what they could. It is only reasonable they would fear attaining prejudicial information. If they deemed the likelihood of attaining adverse information to be greater than the attainment of positive information, then they were making the trial strategy decisions required of counsel. A reasoned and rational trial strategy decision may fail, but it is not ineffective counseling. ¶ 12. O'Halloran next argues that defense counsel was ineffective in its failure to produce ballistics evidence as to the caliber of the bullets. Given O'Halloran's statement that he shot Tolbert with a .9 MM gun, defense counsel wisely served their client because research would have likely prejudiced their client. ¶ 13. O'Halloran also argues that counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the prosecution's closing argument remark that O'Halloran admitted to murder, whereas he actually admitted to nothing more than shooting Tolbert. While such negligence on the part of defense counsel is deficient, it does not rise to the level of prejudicial because of the weight of evidence against O'Halloran. His statement coupled with the forensic testimony is quite sufficient for the jury to have reasonably made the finding it did. ¶ 14. As to the use of the term murder, O'Halloran further argues that he was prejudiced by defense counsels' failure to object under the case of Griffin v. State, 557 So.2d 542 (Miss.1990). In Griffin, the prosecution stated that there's one man alive today who can tell you what happened, and I agree with that. There is one person who could tell you what happened and we havewe have a statement we have a statement from him. See id. at 552. The Court held that the prosecution's argument was an impermissible reference to defendant's failure to take the stand. Id. The instant case is distinguished from Griffin because the prosecution simply refers to O'Halloran's confession rather than implying the one man who can clarify things chooses not to do so. ¶ 15. O'Halloran next argues that defense counsel erred in not ordering him to undergo a psychological examination. If counsel believed such an examination would have been useful, they likely would have ordered defendant to undergo it. It would indeed be unreasonable not to so advise. Hence, given counsels' decision not to order a psychological examination, one must reason that counsel deemed a psychological examination would likely be prejudicial to their client in the context of his case. ¶ 16. O'Halloran finally argues that counsel should have called character witnesses in his defense. However, O'Halloran fails to identify any such witnesses for this Court. He does not show that there were available witnesses to testify to the history of violence between the Tolberts, decedent's reputation for violence, or O'Halloran's reputation in the community for peacefulness. Indeed, O'Halloran entirely fails to bring a case of reversible error. Trial counsel were not ineffective in their representation of O'Halloran.