Opinion ID: 1624195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: appellant's court-appointed counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel primarily by his failure to make a crucial objection which prejudiced appellant's defense.

Text: Appellant testified that the gun involved in the shooting belonged to Johnson. That testimony is contrary to a prior statement made by appellant to Officer White. The officer was offered by the prosecution in rebuttal of appellant's claim that the gun was Johnson's. Appellant contends that trial counsel should have objected to the following testimony of Officer White: Q. And what did Mr. Byrd tell you about the handgun? A. He advised me that he had gotten the gun from Mr. Artis Wren earlier, two or three weeks prior to the time that I got the gun. This testimony was proper rebuttal and not objectionable. In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the United States Supreme Court set forth the standards required to be shown for ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court said: A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or death sentence has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. 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. 466 U.S. at 487, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d at 693. For Mississippi decisions following Strickland, see Wiley v. State, 517 So.2d 1373 (Miss. 1987); Faraga v. State, 514 So.2d 295 (Miss. 1987); Johnson v. State, 511 So.2d 1333 (Miss. 1987). We have carefully considered the record and briefs relating to other arguments of appellant under this assigned error, and are of the opinion that there is no merit in the points argued. The assigned Error II is rejected.