Opinion ID: 1932697
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: appellant had ineffective counsel.

Text: Appellant contends that he had ineffective counsel for three reasons, i.e., trial counsel: (1) failed at trial to object when Trebotich identified him as one of the men involved in the robbery and failed to explore the possibility of misidentification because of a possibly suggestive pretrial photographic array; (2) failed to object to the introduction of photographs of the stolen jewelry on the ground that the merchandise was the best evidence; and (3) failed to point out in closing argument that life imprisonment would be unfair to Reed when the gunman in the robbery was faced with serving only nine (9) years imprisonment. In considering the ineffective counsel question, this Court applies the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and looks to the totality of the circumstances to determine whether or not counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. See Carney v. State, 525 So.2d 776, 780 (Miss. 1988). If the Court finds professional errors, then it determines whether there is a reasonable probability that without counsel's errors the judgment in the case would have been different. Cabello v. State, 524 So.2d 313, 315 (Miss. 1985). As to the photographic identification, Trebotich saw his assailants for approximately twenty (20) minutes, he studied them carefully during the time, he was able to give a minute description of them, particularly the gunman, and when he was shown pictures, he immediately made the identification. As a result of his descriptions, the robbers were arrested, and much of the stolen merchandise and money was recovered. Appellant offered no evidence that the pretrial identification was suggestive, and nothing to indicate that the in-court identification at trial was tainted as a result of the pretrial photographic identification. As to appellant's contention that the photographs of the jewelry were not the best evidence, he offers no authority for his contention on that question. The best evidence rule applies only to documentary evidence. Talbert v. State, 347 So.2d 352, 354 (Miss. 1977). Appellant next contends under this assigned error that his sentence was unfair, that his counsel failed to even point out in closing argument the unfairness of a life sentence for Appellant, when the gunman in the robbery was only sentenced to nine (9) years to serve. We simply note that at the time of appellant's trial, the accomplice gunman had not been sentenced. Assigned Error I is rejected.