Opinion ID: 1104742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

Text: ¶ 27. Johnson argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a circumstantial-evidence instruction. He claims that his case was completely circumstantial, because there were no eyewitnesses and no confession. The testimony revealed that the armed robber wore a ski mask, therefore, no victim positively identified Johnson as the armed robber. However, numerous Wendy's employees were eyewitnesses to the crime. Four of the employees who were present and witnessed the armed robbery testified at trial. ¶ 28. In Havard v. State, 928 So.2d 771, 781 (Miss.2006), this Court cited the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674,(1984) and held: A convicted defendant must meet a two-pronged test to prove his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. [ Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)]. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient... second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Id. Havard, 928 So.2d at 781. In Havard this Court also held that for the first prong, the errors of counsel's performance must be so serious that they prevented counsel from functioning as the Sixth Amendment guarantees. Havard, 928 So.2d at 781. In addition, for the second prong, the errors of counsel must have been so serious that they deprived the defendant of a fair trial, that being a trial with a reliable result. Id. Should a defendant fail to demonstrate that either prong is not met, the claim fails. Id. (citing Neal v. State, 525 So.2d 1279, 1281 (Miss.1987)). ¶ 29. In Hughes v. State, 983 So.2d 270, 278 (Miss.2008), this Court described circumstantial evidence jury instructions: A jury is instructed to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt when a case is based entirely upon circumstantial evidence. Jones v. State, 797 So.2d 922, 927 (Miss.2001) (citing Henderson v. State, 453 So.2d 708, 710 (Miss. 1984)). A circumstantial evidence instruction is required only when the prosecution can produce neither an eyewitness nor a confession/statement by the defendant. Rubenstein, 941 So.2d at 785 (quoting Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 750 (Miss.1991)). See also Jones v. State, 797 So.2d 922, 927 (Miss.2001) (where all the evidence tending to prove guilt of defendant is purely circumstantial, the trial court must grant a jury instruction that every reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt must be excluded in order to convict.). ¶ 30. Here, defense counsel did not request a circumstantial-evidence instruction. The trial court does not have to prepare instructions for the litigants. Notwithstanding this, there was direct evidence of the armed robbery by four Wendy's employees who witnessed the crime. These employees testified to items used or taken by the masked man during the armed robbery and to his threats to kill them. Johnson argues that the jury deliberated the case guided by instructions which improperly afforded the state a reduced burden of proof. The record reveals otherwise. ¶ 31. Here, the evidence was overwhelming in this case. Johnson was pulled over thirty minutes after the armed robbery occurred at Wendy's. He was wearing a tan shirt and distinctive white tennis shoes with a blue and red stripe similar to the clothing described by the Wendy's employees as being worn by the robber. Furthermore, he had brown cotton gloves, a blue ski mask, a denim wallet with an OK sticker on it, a black duffel bag with rolled coins, various amounts of bills, and Wendy's receipts dated February 21, 2005. All of these items were described by the Wendy's employees as being used or taken in the armed robbery. The police also recovered a hand gun with bullets approximately fifty yards from Johnson's vehicle. Numerous Wendy's employees testified that the recovered gun was similar to that used in the robbery. Since eyewitnesses to the crime testified and the evidence against Johnson was overwhelming, a circumstantial evidence instruction was not appropriate. Therefore, trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to request one.