Opinion ID: 1107688
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.

Text: ¶ 26. Finally, Branch argues that if his appellate counsel was duty-bound to present post-conviction claims on direct appeal, then his appellate counsel was ineffective in the manner in which Branch's mental health was presented. Specifically, Branch accuses appellate counsel of hurriedly obtaining a few affidavits, which Branch asserts were generic, boilerplate statements that conveyed little note (sic) about Petitioner's mental state, background, or intellectual functioning. ¶ 27. The test for ineffective assistance of counsel is well-settled. The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness [of counsel] must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052. In order to prevail on this claim, Branch must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense of the case. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468, 477 (Miss.1984) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052). ¶ 28. Defense counsel is presumed competent. Washington v. State, 620 So.2d 966 (Miss.1993). However, even where professional error is shown, a reviewing court must determine whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Mohr v. State, 584 So.2d 426, 430 (Miss.1991). When reviewing a case involving the death penalty, the most important inquiry is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer-including an appellate court, to the extent it independently re-weighs the evidence-would have concluded that the balance of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052. If Branch's post-conviction application fails on either of the Strickland prongs, the proceedings end. Foster v. State, 687 So.2d 1124, 1129-30 (Miss.1996). ¶ 29. Branch's appellate counsel presented evidence to this Court on direct appeal, over the State's objection, in support of Branch's mental retardation claim. The extraneous evidence included the forensic mental evaluation of Branch performed on February 28, 2002, by W. Criss Lott, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, as well as the mental evaluation of Branch performed on March 15, 1985, when Branch was only five years old. Also presented were the affidavits of Dr. Lott, numerous family members, and several of Branch's former teachers. Once this Court affirmed Branch's conviction and sentence on direct appeal, Branch's appellate counsel filed a motion for rehearing with an additional affidavit from Dr. Grant, which this Court struck upon motion by the State. Counsel for Branch then placed this issue before the United States Supreme Court in a petition for writ of certiorari. ¶ 30. We find that Branch has failed to show that his appellate counsel was deficient and, therefore, he has failed to meet the burden placed upon him by the first prong of Strickland. Additionally, Branch's claim of mental retardation failed on the merits on direct appeal. We must caution that other issues which were either presented through direct appeal or could have been presented on direct appeal or at trial are procedurally barred and cannot be relitigated under the guise of poor representation by counsel. Foster, 687 So.2d at 1129. III. ADMISSION OF VICTIM IMPACT TESTIMONY IV. REFUSAL OF DEFENSE SENTENCING INSTRUCTIONS DS-1, DS-5, AND DS-10 V. REFUSAL OF DEFENSE SENTENCING INSTRUCTION DS-2, DEFINITION OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES VI. REFUSAL OF DEFENSE SENTENCE INSTRUCTION DS-1, THE BURDEN OF PROOF VII. EFFECTIVENESS OF COUNSEL AT ALL STAGES OF THIS PROSECUTION A.1. INVESTIGATION AND PRESENTATION OF BRANCH'S MENTAL RETARDATION CLAIM DURING THE PENALTY PHASE OF THE TRIAL A.2. FAILURE TO INTRODUCE MENTAL HEALTH MITIGATION OTHER THAN THE FINDING OF MENTAL RETARDATION A.3. FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE VIII. STATE'S BURDEN TO SHOW THAT DEATH WAS THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE IN THIS CASE IX. CLAIM OF MENTAL RETARDATION ¶ 31. Each of the Issues III-IX was raised on direct appeal and decided adversely to Branch. See Branch, 882 So.2d 36. [3] With the exception of Branch's Issue IX, [4] these issues and their respective arguments presented in Branch's PCR are identical, almost verbatim, to the arguments presented in Branch's Original Brief of Appellant on direct appeal. Branch has not demonstrated a novel claim nor a sudden reversal of law relative to these issues which would exempt a single one of these claims from the procedural bar of res judicata pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3) (Supp.2006). See also Lockett v. State, 614 So.2d 888, 893 (Miss.1992) (citing Rideout v. State, 496 So.2d 667 (Miss. 1986); Gilliard v. State, 446 So.2d 590 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 32. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that Lawrence Branch is not entitled to post-conviction relief; therefore, we deny Branch's Petition for Post Conviction Relief with Exhibits and his Amendment to Petition for Post-Conviction Relief with Exhibits. ¶ 33. PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITH EXHIBITS AND AMENDMENT TO THE PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITH EXHIBITS, DENIED. SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ., CONCUR. DIAZ, P.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY GRAVES, J.