Opinion ID: 1654062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Counsel failed to contest the constitutionality of Davis's confession.

Text: ¶ 6. This Court recounted the events of Jeffrey Davis's statements to law enforcement as follows: On Friday, July 12, 1991, [Greene County] Sheriff Tommy Miller received a phone call at home from Jeffrey Davis. Davis identified himself to Sheriff Miller and told the Sheriff that he had killed Linda Hillman. Sheriff Miller had no prior notice of foul play at Linda Hillman's trailer located in Greene County, Mississippi. Sheriff Miller knew both Davis, the defendant, and Hillman, the victim. Davis told Miller to come and get him at his home. Miller went to Davis' home with Deputy Sheriff Henry Benjamin. When they arrived, Davis came out of his home carrying two bags of clothes. Davis began to tell his story to Sheriff Miller, but Miller stopped him and read Davis his Miranda rights. Davis told Miller that he understood his rights and finished telling Miller his story. Davis told Sheriff Miller the following: (1) that Davis went to Hillman's trailer early Thursday morning, July 11, 1991; (2) that he killed Hillman about 6:00 a.m.; (3) that he had borrowed two hundred dollars from Hillman the previous Monday; (4) that he knew she had more money; (5) that he went there to rob Hillman in order to buy more drugs; (6) that he killed her when she refused to give him more money; (7) that after the killing he walked through a corn field, and (8) that he went to Pascagoula, Mississippi to buy more drugs. Davis admitted stabbing Hillman with a knife. Davis had the knife he had used to kill Hillman on him and gave the knife to Sheriff Miller. Davis also told Miller the location of clothing and shoes that Davis had worn the morning of the murder. Miller, accompanied by Davis, found the items submerged in separate creeks. After retrieving these items, Miller and Benjamin took Davis to the sheriffs office and advised him again of his rights under the Constitution and required by Miranda. Davis signed a waiver of rights form and retold the story to Sheriff Miller. Sheriff Miller then went to Hillman's trailer where he found her lying dead on her bed. Davis, 684 So.2d at 648-49. ¶ 7. George Shaddock never moved to suppress any of Davis's statements and never objected to the admission of any of the statements admitted through Sheriff Miller based on voluntariness. Davis attempted to raise this issue on direct appeal, but this Court found that the issue was procedurally barred for failure to raise the issue at trial. Davis, 684 So.2d at 657-58. The Court further noted that none of Davis's statements were ever reduced to writing, which this Court found passing strange and unique. Davis, 684 So.2d at 658. ¶ 8. Davis now argues that Shaddock was ineffective for failure to attack the voluntariness of Davis's statements based on his alleged drug use and the fact that Davis believed that his confession would lead to help from Sheriff Miller. First, Davis does not specifically state which statements he is questioning here. Davis made at least four separate statements. The standard of review for such a question may be found in Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986), where the U.S. Supreme Court stated: Where defense counsel's failure to litigate a Fourth Amendment claim competently is the principal allegation of ineffectiveness, the defendant must also prove that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence in order to demonstrate actual prejudice.... Though Kimmelman deals with a Fourth Amendment question while this question arises out of the Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent and against self-incrimination, we find that the standard should be the same. ¶ 9. Davis cites Jenkins v. State, 607 So.2d 1171, 1175 (Miss.1992), where this Court stated: The admission of a druginduced confession would clearly violate a defendant's right against self-incrimination guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution. Davis also cites State v. Williams, 208 So.2d 172 (Miss.1968), as an example of a confession excluded because of the influence of alcohol. Williams's situation was different than Davis's; Williams was a habitual drunkard and the record showed that he was in an acute, rampant state of intoxication equivalent to mania and suffered from a deranged and psychotic mental imbalance. Williams, 208 So.2d at 175. Davis also states that his confession was the result of coercion in that Davis believed that [a]fter talking to the Sheriff, I thought he would help me if I turned myself in. Davis cites Abram v. State, 606 So.2d 1015, 1030 (Miss.1992), where this Court stated that a voluntary admissible statement was one that was not the proximate result of any promises, threats or other inducements. ¶ 10. As to the statement that Davis made to Sheriff Miller over the phone that he had killed Linda Hillman in her trailer and wanted Sheriff Miller to come get him, there is no suggestion that this was not unsolicited and voluntary, except for the argument that Davis was intoxicated at the time. This statement would not involve Miranda warnings, as there was no custodial interrogation. As to the second statement, made to Sheriff Miller when he and his deputy went to pick Davis up, this statement also did not involve interrogation until Sheriff Miller stopped Davis from telling his story and informed him of his Miranda rights. Miller stated that Davis was very calm and unemotional at this time. Miller stated that Davis acted normal and did not smell of alcohol. Davis told Miller that he had been using drugs, and Miller saw what he believed to be more than one needle mark on Davis's arm. The third statement was made to Sheriff Miller once he and Davis arrived back at the courthouse. According to Miller, he informed Davis of his rights again, and Davis told the same story he had told earlier. The fourth statement(s) would have been any that Davis made during the search of his home. Kevin Fortenberry, an investigator with the Mississippi Highway Patrol, observed Davis while his house was being searched and stated that Davis had a calm, cocky attitude. Don Sumrall, crime scene investigator for the Mississippi Crime Lab, also observed Davis while his house was being searched and stated that Davis was calm and showed no remorse. ¶ 11. The first step in the analysis under Strickland v. Washington and Kimmelman v. Morrison is consideration of whether Shaddock's failure to file a motion to suppress one or any of Davis's statements was deficient conduct. It is certainly unusual in a capital case that there was no attempt by defense counsel to suppress the statement(s), and we would be hardpressed to attribute this to trial strategy. On the other hand, it does not appear that counsel should be required to file frivolous motions. On this record it is difficult to see how the trial court, given the proper standard of review, would have excluded the statements. By all accounts Davis was calm, in control of his faculties, and possessed a detailed and helpful memory as to his actions during and after the murder. The allegation made in Davis's affidavit was that the Sheriff was an acquaintance of Davis's whom Davis thought would help him if he turned himself in. Davis says nothing about what it was Sheriff Miller might have said to make him think this, and nothing as to whether it may have been improper. Based on this record, there is little to support the notion that Shaddock would have been successful in suppressing Davis's statements. Assuming that Shaddock could have produced a basis for suppression of some of Davis's statements at a hearing, we find no basis on which the initial statement, made over the phone from Davis to Miller, could have been suppressed. ¶ 12. As to the question of prejudice, and whether the verdict would have been different had the evidence in question been excluded, there is once again the question of just which statements are at issue. It is difficult to see how the initial phone call admission from Davis to Miller could have been excluded. That statement would have led to a search of Davis, which would have elicited one murder weapon, the knife; Hillman's body would have been discovered at her trailer; and a warrant for the search of Davis's house could have been obtained. We find that Davis has failed to make the requisite showing of deficient conduct and prejudice required under Strickland v. Washington .