Opinion ID: 1133529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: whether house was denied effective assistance of counsel.

Text: ¶ 31. House finally claims ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court follows the Strickland test for determining when a defendant has been ineffectively represented by counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Mowdy v. State, 638 So.2d 738, 742 (Miss.1994). Under that standard the defendant must overcome a strong presumption of effectiveness to show that the attorney's performance was deficient. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065. The defendant must also show that the mistake or mistakes were so prejudicial as to convince this Court with a reasonable degree of certainty that but for counsel's mistakes, the outcome would have been different. 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. ¶ 32. First, House argues that he was denied a fair trial when his attorney instructed him to sign the guilty plea petition when it was clear or should have been clear that he was incompetent and could not intelligently ... and [voluntarily] make such a decision. However, as we concluded above, House was competent and did enter his plea knowingly and voluntarily. ¶ 33. Secondly, House argues that defense counsel did not advise him of possible defenses and that if he had gone to trial he would have been convicted of manslaughter which carries a lighter sentence than the offense to which he pled guilty. At the plea hearing, however, House's counsel acknowledged that he was satisfied that if the case went to trial, the State would be able to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the essential elements of the crime. Also, House testified that he was satisfied with the services rendered by his attorney and that he had no complaints against him whatsoever. House has therefore failed to demonstrate that, but for his counsel's advice, the outcome would have been different. ¶ 34. House suggests that his attorney cheated him out of certain assets, but House offered no proof to substantiate this allegation. Moreover, it is irrelevant to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. ¶ 35. Thus, in addition to the time bar of § 99-39-5(2), this assignment of error is without merit.