Opinion ID: 1782423
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to raise a Batson challenge.

Text: ¶ 17. Turner claims that during jury selection, his lawyers should have made a motion pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). The record is silent about the racial breakdown of the members of the jury pool. Turner's attorneys did file a pre-trial motion to prevent the State from excluding jurors based on the juror's race. Turner and his accomplice Stewart are white. The murder victims were African-American. ¶ 18. Once again, the attorneys' performance is presumed to be competent. Hansen v. State, 649 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Miss.1994), and there is a strong presumption that the attorneys' decisions are reasonable and strategic. Taylor v. State, 682 So.2d at 359, 363 (Miss.1996). Juror selection depends on strategic considerations. To overcome the presumption of competence, Turner is required to produce more than mere speculation of a Batson violation. Turner makes no specific claim as to any individual juror and he offers no specific questionable peremptory challenge utilized by the State. We find that Turner has neither shown that his attorneys were ineffective nor that he was prejudiced as a result of a hypothetical deficiency. Once again, he fails to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test. ¶ 19. Turner cites Triplett v. State, 666 So.2d 1356 (Miss.1995). In Triplett, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter. On appeal, this Court determined that his attorney had failed to investigate the evidence and was unfamiliar with the State's witnesses and the scene of the crime, had failed to file a motion to suppress the defendant's statement, had failed to properly challenge jurors for cause, had failed to submit an instruction entailing the defense's theory that the killing had been accidental, and failed to make a Batson motion. In sum, the Court found that the attorney had failed to perform any act basic to the defense of the accused. Id. at 1361. The Court concluded that the attorney was ineffective only after considering the totality of his performance. Id. at 1363. ¶ 20. Triplett is clearly distinguishable. There, the attorney was ill-prepared to go forward with trial and the defendant was prejudiced by his attorney's multiple deficiencies. The Court there found a marked failure of counsel to fulfill his adversarial role and under the totality of the circumstances, Triplett had not been afforded a fair trial. The failure to make a Batson motion was only one factor considered in the overall failure of the attorney to adequately represent his client. This Court has previously distinguished Triplett. See Le v. State, 913 So.2d 913, 953 (Miss.2005); Wilcher v. State, 863 So.2d 719, 741 (Miss.2004). Triplett is narrowly applied to cases alleging multiple instances of ineffective, deficient conduct by an attorney. ¶ 21. In Smith v. State, 877 So.2d 369, 383 (Miss.2004), this Court held that [j]ury selection is generally a matter of trial strategy, and an attorney's decision not to make a Batson challenge does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel absent a showing of prejudice to the defendant. (citing Burns v. State, 813 So.2d 668, 676 (Miss.2002)). ¶ 22. Turner has shown no prejudice resulting from his attorneys' decision not to make a Batson challenge, even if we presume a basis existed for the exercise of such a challenge.