Opinion ID: 1800634
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to properly prepare Hodges for his testimony

Text: ¶ 36. Hodges argues that counsel was ineffective for failure to prepare him as a witness for his sentencing hearing once Hodges decided to testify. Hodges states that because of this lack of preparation, he was opened up on cross-examination to all prior charges because defense counsel failed the explain the difference between a `charge' and a conviction. On direct appeal this Court found that, even assuming defense counsel was deficient in not making sure Hodges knew this difference, Hodges still had not shown prejudice. Hodges, 912 So.2d at 768-69. J. Lead trial counsel was ineffective in this matter because of inadequate experience, time, resources and personal circumstances ¶ 37. Hodges next discusses why Michael D. Miller was ineffective. Hodges states that Miller was ineffective because of his inexperience, in that he had been admitted to the Bar less than a year before Hodges's trial and had not previously tried a case before a jury in circuit court. Hodges states that Miller was suffering from bi-polar disorder. Hodges states that Miller was using various prescription and non-prescription drugs around the time of Hodges's trial, including marijuana, methamphetamine and cocaine. After the trial Miller's parents sought to have him committed because of his suicidal thoughts and paranoid delusions. In January 2003, Miller was found to be a mentally ill person who poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to himself and was committed by the Chancery Court of Lowndes County to East Mississippi State Hospital. ¶ 38. Hodges cites Jermyn v. Horn, 266 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir.2001), where the United States District Court granted Jermyn another sentencing hearing after finding that his counsel was ineffective in failing to timely prepare and investigate possible claims involving his client's mental health. Hodges states that the comparisons with his case and Jermyn are exact, except that in Jermyn's case there was a wealth of information to find by investigation, including mental health professionals who had found Jermyn to be schizophrenic and evidence of a horrific childhood filled with physical and mental abuse committed by Jermyn's father. There are no such factors present in Hodges's case. ¶ 39. The State argues that if Michael Miller provided ineffective assistance of counsel, as this Court found on direct appeal, then a new or more compelling explanation for the same behavior is irrelevant. The State argues that what is important in an ineffective assistance claim is the behavior, not the explanation for the behavior. In Berry v. King, 765 F.2d 451, 454 (5th Cir.1985), the Fifth Circuit noted that whether Berry's attorney had used drugs during Berry's trial was disputed, and added: In any case, under Strickland the fact that an attorney used drugs is not, in and of itself, relevant to an ineffective assistance claim. The critical claim is whether, for whatever reason, counsel's performance was deficient and whether that deficiency prejudiced the defendant. We therefore concentrate on Berry's specific allegations of deficient performance and prejudice. See also Guy v. Cockrell, No. 01-10425, 2002 WL 32785533, 2002 U.S.App. LEXIS 28184, at  (5th Cir. July 23, 2002) (counsel's admitted drug use during trial only relevant if inmate could show where counsel's performance was deficient because of drug use, citing Berry ); Burnett v. Collins, 982 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1993) (same); Gonzales v. State, 915 So.2d 1108, 1111 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (failure to show prejudice from attorney's alleged drug use). This evidence of drug use and illness may explain some of Michael Miller's behavior before and during Hodges's trial, but it does not change this Court's finding on direct appeal that Michael Miller provided ineffective assistance of counsel. K. Trial counsel was ineffective for failure to adequately argue for investigative assistance and was likewise rendered ineffective by the trial court's denial of investigation assistance ¶ 40. Hodges argues that Michael Miller requested that the circuit court appoint an investigator, but failed to present to the court ample reason with supporting evidence as to why an investigator was needed. This Court cannot find such a motion in the appeal record, though Miller did testify at a pretrial hearing that he might file such a motion. Hodges next states that it would have been relatively easy for Miller to show the need for an investigator, especially considering the short time he had before trial. While Miller might have needed an investigator, what he needed more than anything was sufficient time to prepare for trial, which was impossible given his voluntary entrance into this case on August 20, 2001, for a case set for September 10, 2001. As a practical matter, finding an investigator within that time frame and the investigator's ability to accomplish any work of value are doubtful. Finally, Hodges states that [i]t should be noted that at all times pertinent to the trial, Hodges was incarcerated and had been declared indigent. His fortune had not changed while he was in jail awaiting trial. Despite this allegation of financial status, someone hired Miller to represent Hodges. The trial judge specifically noted this when Miller mentioned that he might ask for an investigator: He's not indigent because he's hired counsel. ¶ 41. The Court finds that Hodges raised in his direct appeal the arguments found in parts A, C, F, H and I, and he is barred from raising those issues again here by res judicata. The remaining allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel made by Hodges are found to be without merit, as is this issue as a whole.