Opinion ID: 1819029
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Expert opinion testimony of Dr. David Curtis

Text: ¶ 44. Howard argues that his trial counsel neglected to voir dire Dr. Curtis as to his qualifications to render . . . expert opinion testimony and further neglected to cross-examine him following direct examination by the State. Howard then states that it was obvious that Dr. Curtis did not accurately prepare the impressions/molds at issue. Howard contends that this was constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. ¶ 45. As is discussed more thoroughly in issue V, Howard has completely failed to prove that Dr. Curtis was unqualified to prepare Howard's dental molds or that there was something actually wrong with those molds or the manner in which they were made. In fact, the record reflects the contrary. We have consistently held, When evaluating the overall performance of counsel, it must be considered that counsel makes strategic discretionary decisions including whether or not to file certain motions, call certain witnesses, ask certain questions, or make certain objections. See Cole v. State, 666 So.2d 767, 777 (Miss.1995). There is also a strong presumption that the attorney's performance was within the wide range of reasonable, professional, and acceptable conduct. See Leatherwood v. State, 473 So.2d 964, 968-69 (Miss.1985). Underwood v. State, 919 So.2d 931, 940 (Miss.2005). We find that counsels' decisions regarding the examination of Dr. Curtis were trial strategy. Howard cannot meet both prongs of Strickland, and the petition is denied as to this issue. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064.