Opinion ID: 1805306
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Challenge Venue.

Text: ¶ 11. Mitchell asserts that counsel was ineffective due to his failure to actively seek a change of venue. Since he is an African-American and the victim was white, Mitchell maintains that it was imperative that he be tried in a county where the racial make-up was more favorable to him. This Court, however, has previously held that a defendant has no right to a change of venue to a jurisdiction with certain racial demographics. De La Beckwith v. State, 707 So.2d 547, 597 (Miss.1997). Mitchell was entitled only to a trial by an impartial jury representing a fair cross-section of the community. Lanier v. State, 533 So.2d 473, 477 (Miss.1988). A motion for a change of venue is not automatically granted in a capital case. There must be a satisfactory showing that a defendant cannot receive a fair and impartial trial in the county where the offense is charged. Gray v. State, 728 So.2d 36, 65 (Miss.1998). Mitchell has made no such showing.