Opinion ID: 1695019
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether washington was denied effective assistance of counsel.

Text: ¶ 15. Via a pro se supplemental brief, Washington alleges that none of his three attorneys provided effective assistance in his defense and appeal. Accusations of ineffective assistance of counsel are subject to the requirements set forth under Osborn v. State, 695 So.2d 570, 575 (Miss.1997), and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Under both cases, this Court will not find counsel's assistance ineffective unless the accused (1) cites specific instances in which the attorney was so deficient that he essentially was not acting as counsel, and (2) shows that those errors deprived the accused of a fair trial. Id. ¶ 16. As evidence of his attorneys' deficient conduct, Washington points to a few specific instances. Namely, Washington accuses his counsel of not conducting a thorough independent investigation of the charges. He goes on to assert that his court-appointed attorney should have procured experts on handwriting analysis and voice verification to challenge the veracity of the confessions. (Washington claims that he never gave any statement to the police). In addition, Washington takes issue with his attorney not objecting to the indictment, which will be dealt with separately as Issue VI. Washington also claims that counsel did not file an appeal on his behalf, would not call Washington and his girlfriend as witnesses, and should have objected to jury selection partly being conducted without Washington's presence. Washington claims that these examples more than illustrate ineffective assistance of counsel. ¶ 17. Washington's argument has two fatal flaws. First, he does not show how any of the alleged deficiencies deprived him of a fair trial, which is an essential element in the Strickland analysis. Thus, Washington's argument already fails. In addition, all of the alleged examples either can be easily explained or are frankly fictional. Time, money, and feasibility likely weighed against acquiring the suggested experts; plus, the allegations that the statements were fabricated are not supported by any evidence, save Washington's own word. As previously mentioned, the questions concerning the indictment will be discussed under another issue. Washington fired one attorney and specifically instructed him to not take action on this matter. His new attorney did file an appeal, so this claim is baseless. The failure to call witnesses can be chalked up to trial strategy. ¶ 18. Washington asserts in his supplemental brief before this Court that his trial counsel advised him it would be in Washington's best interest not to testify. Washington merely claims that he requested to testify on his own behalf. Also, There is no evidence to support this contention, and a review of Washington's argument does not reveal what the excluded testimony would have accomplished. However, at the conclusion of the State's case-in-chief, and after Washington rested his case without calling any witnesses, the trial court made no record regarding Washington's decision not to testify. This Court has previously suggested to trial judges that in any case where a defendant does not testify, before the case is submitted to the jury, the defendant should be called before the court out of the presence of the jury, and advised of his right to testify ... A record should be made of this so that no question about defendant's waiver of his right to testify should ever arise in the future. Culberson v. State, 412 So.2d 1184, 1186-87 (Miss.1982). This issue was also considered in Jaco v. State, 574 So.2d 625, 636 (Miss.1990). ¶ 19. In Jaco, this Court acknowledged that the defendant should be allowed an evidentiary hearing where he presents a substantial and detailed affidavit to the effect that his attorney denied and affirmatively preventing him from testifying. Id. at 636. Similar to the case sub judice, the Jacos rested their case and the trial court failed to advise the Jacos of their right to testify. Id. at 633. However, this Court found that there was no evidence that the Jacos questioned their attorney concerning the advice not to testify and there was no dubious legal advice given to the Jacos; therefore, the Jacos were not allowed a evidentiary hearing on that point. The record in the case sub judice suggests that Washington merely followed the advice of his attorney. Washington had a record of convictions for prior felonies. If Washington had elected to take the stand, the jury would have learned about his previous convictions. Also, Washington does not allege that he was not aware of his right to testify in his own behalf. Furthermore, Washington provides no insight or argument as to how testifying on his own behalf would have given him a more favorable outcome. To be sure, a decision to testify would have been complete folly because the jury could verify the authenticity of the voice-recorded statement of Washington against his trial testimony. See Bracey v. State, 724 So.2d 1028, 1032 (Miss.Ct.App.1998). ¶ 20. Finally, Washington's presence for the entire jury selection process was not necessary and did not cause an unfair trial. Therefore, we find this issue without merit.