Opinion ID: 1834364
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Was the Defendant Represented by Competent Counsel?

Text: Handley contends that he was represented by incompetent counsel at retrial and sentencing. His counsel at retrial and sentencing was Douglas R. Ainsworth of Gulfport, Mississippi. Ainsworth also represented Handley at the hearing on his JNOV motion. The claim of ineffective assistance was not raised in this hearing. Handley argues he was denied a fair trial as a result of ineffective assistance. He argues ineffective assistance because trial counsel failed to: 1. Confer with prior trial counsel, Ms. Karen Young, to educate himself as to the intricacies of this case... . 2. Properly prepare the defense witnesses after making a judgment evaluation that they should or should not have been called; 3. By basing his entire defense of [sic] that of alibi, and then failing to put in an alibi instruction; 4. By not properly preparing for cross examination of the expert witness that was put on by the State; 5. By not vigorous [sic] challenging any and all of the State's witnesses, opinions and/or hearsay testimony, particularly in regard to one officer testifying as to what a second officer saw and understood; 6. Failing to properly investigate and/or present character witnesses; 7. Failed to present meaningful arguments to the sentencing judge. It is uncontested that this assignment is controlled by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). At issue is whether the Strickland test for ineffective assistance was met.
When faced with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial or sentencing, this Court follows the test set down in Strickland, supra. Leatherwood v. State, 539 So.2d 1378 (Miss. 1989); Cabello v. State, 524 So.2d 313 (Miss. 1988); Byrd v. State, 522 So.2d 756 (Miss. 1988); Merritt v. State, 517 So.2d 517 (Miss. 1988); Wiley v. State, 517 So.2d 1373 (Miss. 1987); King v. State, 503 So.2d 271 (Miss. 1987); Evans v. State, 485 So.2d 276 (Miss. 1986); Caldwell v. State, 481 So.2d 850 (Miss. 1985); Leatherwood v. State, 473 So.2d 964 (Miss. 1985); Lambert v. State, 462 So.2d 308 (Miss. 1984); Thames v. State, 454 So.2d 486 (Miss. 1984). This Court set out the test and standards in Cabello v. State, 524 So.2d 313 (Miss. 1988): In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984), the United States Supreme Court established a two-prong test, required to prove the ineffective assistance of counsel: the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense... . The burden of proof then rests with the movant... . Under the first prong, there is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. .. . In short, defense counsel is presumed competent. Under the second prong, even if counsel's conduct is professionally unreasonable, the judgment stands if the error had no effect on the judgment. ... Consequently, the movant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. ... There is no constitutional right then to errorless counsel... . Id. at 315. (citations omitted). Handley's claims are now addressed in the order presented utilizing these standards.
The record contains no evidence that Ainsworth failed to confer with Handley's first counsel. Absent a record, Handley has failed to show that the alleged failure constituted deficient performance and, therefore, this argument has no merit.
Ainsworth called three (3) alibi witnesses in his case in chief: (1) Albert Marshall, who testified that Handley was picking him up from work in Ocean Springs when the alleged sale was being made; (2) Albert Murphy, a resident of Tim's Motel which is located next to the Hot Spot Lounge in Gulfport, who testified that Handley was at his residence at the time of the alleged sale; and (3) Debra Lafayette, Handley's step-daughter, who testified that he was in bed at her mother's house in Ocean Springs at the time of the alleged sale. Ainsworth called two (2) witnesses in Surrebuttal: (1) Debra LaFayette, who testified that Handley never wore a beard; and (2) J.W. Langford, who testified that he had seen Handley 40 to 50 times prior to the day of the alleged sale and knew him very well. J.W. Langford, a former narcotics officer with the Harrison County Sheriff's Office who cooperated with the MBN in the sale, was the State's first witness in chief. The record contains no evidence that Ainsworth failed to meet with and/or confer with these witnesses prior to their taking the witness stand. We find that this argument has no merit. See Evans v. State, 485 So.2d 276 (Miss. 1986).
Handley presented an alibi defense at retrial. The record shows that Ainsworth did not submit an alibi instruction. However, the trial court, sua sponte, submitted an alibi instruction on behalf of Handley, thereby alleviating any prejudice to Handley. Therefore, this argument has no merit.
The record contains no evidence that Ainsworth failed to properly prepare for cross examination. Absent a record, Handley has failed to show that the alleged failure constituted deficient performance and, therefore, this argument has no merit.
This Court has said that the failure to object could have represented a strategic decision to avoid additional comment. Cabello, 524 So.2d at 318. [S]ince there is `no single, particular way to defend a client or to provide effective assistance,' and courts are `reluctant to infer from silence an absence of strategy,' Id. at 317, this argument has no merit.
Decisions of counsel are presumed to be strategic. Cabello, 524 So.2d at 319; Leatherwood, 473 So.2d at 969. Counsel for a defendant is under no duty to present mitigating evidence. Cabello, 524 So.2d at 319 and cases cited therein. This argument has no merit.
The record shows that at the sentencing hearing Ainsworth objected to the introduction of the State's evidence of prior convictions, pointed out discrepancies in the State's evidence, argued his position, timely renewed his objections after the trial court ruled and presented the trial court with authority in support of his arguments. Ainsworth was partially successful. See discussion in Section IV, supra. This argument has no merit.
The record shows that Albert, not Allen, Murphy, testified as an alibi witness at Handley's retrial. The person who expired prior to the retrial was one Fritz Allen, a man who physically resembled Handley. This argument has no merit. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, Handley has failed to meet his burden under the Strickland test and therefore, we find that this assignment has no merit. Having found no merit in any of Handley's assignments of error, the conviction of sale of a controlled substance and sentence under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81 are hereby affirmed. CONVICTION OF SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCE AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER PURSUANT TO MISS. CODE ANN. § 99-19-81 TO THIRTY (30) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER, ANDERSON and BLASS, JJ., concur. ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and PITTMAN, JJ., dissent without written opinion.