Opinion ID: 1745774
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Trial counsel's actions denied Cabello his right to testify in his own behalf.

Text: Counsel advised Cabello not to testify at trial, since he would be subject to impeachment for his prior conviction. Now, Cabello claims that counsel was ineffective, denying him the right to testify, since the conviction was invalid. See, Sections III. and IX. In this case, there is no suggestion that Cabello insisted upon taking the stand and that he was prevented from doing so by counsel or the court. Merritt v. State, 517 So.2d 517, 520 (Miss. 1987). See also, Neal v. State, 525 So.2d 1279 (Miss. 1987); Culberson v. State, 412 So.2d 1184, 1186 (Miss. 1982). Rather, Cabello simply followed his counsel's advice. Cabello complains that counsel was ineffective, since there was no investigation into the conviction's validity. In Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d at 695, the United States Supreme Court held that a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments. In Cook v. Lynaugh, 821 F.2d 1072, 1078 (5th Cir.1987), the Fifth Circuit noted that the Constitution imposes no general, per se duty on counsel to investigate whether a defendant's prior convictions were counseled. See also, Marks v. Estelle, 691 F.2d 730, 734-5 (5th Cir.1982). Under the facts of this case, there was nothing to indicate that an investigation into the conviction was warranted. Cf. Cook, 821 F.2d at 1078-9. Error is denied.