Opinion ID: 1613049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether benson received ineffective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel's lack of preparation.

Text: ¶ 15. Benson argues that his trial counsel had only 14 days to prepare for trial and that in a motion for continuance his trial counsel had argued that he had ten other criminal cases at the time. Benson also argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective by not raising the issue of his trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel and by only raising two issues and not filing a rebuttal brief. Benson's trial counsel testified at the hearing that he did have adequate time to prepare for Benson's case because there were only a few witnesses. Specifically, Benson's trial counsel stated that there were three witnesses for the State and against my wishes, my client, were the four witnesses, It wasn't particularly complex. No. I wouldn't say that 14 days is long enough tohopefully, you would have long enough to prepare for any trial. ¶ 16. An allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to properly prepare must state whether any additional investigation, such as interviewing witnesses or investigating facts, would have significantly aided or altered the outcome of the defendant's case at trial. Brown v. State, 798 So.2d 481, 494, 496 (Miss.2001); Mohr v. State, 584 So.2d 426, 430 (Miss. 1991). Based on a review of the record and of the facts of this case, there is no support for Benson's claim that his trial counsel was not adequately prepared and that any additional investigation would have altered the outcome of the case. This issue is without merit.