Opinion ID: 1821648
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: ineffective assistance in failing to object to the trial court's instruction allowing only two sentencing options: death or life without parole.

Text: ¶ 26. At the sentencing phase, the jury was instructed that it could return a verdict of death or life without parole. Burns complains now that the jury was not instructed that a verdict of life with parole was available. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-21(2000) and Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101(1) (2000) provide that persons convicted of capital murder are to be sentenced to death, life without parole, or life with parole. However, the legislature removed parole as an option for capital murder convicts with Miss.Code Ann. § 47-7-3(f) which provides that No person shall be eligible for parole who is charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under the provisions of Section 99-19-101. Burns argues that his attorneys were ineffective in failing to object to the trial court's instructions during the sentencing phase. ¶ 27. This Court addressed this issue in Puckett v. State, 737 So.2d 322 (Miss.1999). In that case, the Court held that where the jury imposes the death penalty, the fact that the jury was not given the option of life with parole does not constitute harmful error. It is not logical to think that had the jury been given the option of life with parole, they might have selected that option over the death penalty. Id. at 363. This issue is without merit.