Opinion ID: 1107688
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: M.R.A.P. 22(b) and a meaningful opportunity to seek post-conviction relief.

Text: ¶ 16. Branch's argument is similar to that presented in Issue I, being that procedural bars should not apply because the direct appeal process did not allow him an adequate opportunity to present a fully developed argument to support his Strickland and Atkins claims. He further asserts that the direct appeal process does not allow him access to the files of trial counsel, law enforcement officials, and the prosecutor, or allow him to secure a mitigation expert or an evidentiary hearing, otherwise available under M.R.A.P. 22(c), (d), and (e). ¶ 17. Branch argues that no procedural bar should prevent this Court from reconsidering his Strickland and Atkins claims. Further, Branch asserts his right to effective post-conviction relief counsel, and argues that failure of this Court to reconsider his Strickland and Atkins claim would deny him that right. ¶ 18. Branch was represented on direct appeal by counsel other than his trial counsel. M.R.A.P. 22(b), as it existed at the time of Branch's trial and direct appeal, stated: Issues which may be raised in post-conviction proceedings may also be raised on direct appeal. Where the appellant is represented by counsel who did not represent the appellant at trial, the failure to raise such issues on direct appeal shall constitute a waiver barring consideration of the issues in post-conviction proceedings. [1] Branch, 882 So.2d at 49. Branch raised the issues of mental retardation and ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. Extraneous facts and appendices submitted on direct appeal that were not part of the trial record were challenged by the State; however, this Court allowed consideration of the extraneous material. For reasons fully discussed in the opinion on Branch's direct appeal, this Court held that Branch must raise Atkins and ineffective assistance of counsel issues in this direct appeal or he will be barred from doing so in subsequent appeals. Id. Therefore, this Court permitted Branch to proceed with these issues, and we considered the additional documents supplied in his Appendices to Original Brief of Appellant. Id. ¶ 19. This Court has also previously stated that [i]f new counsel on direct appeal is required to assert collateral claims, there must be an opportunity to submit extraneous facts and discovery and evidentiary hearing to develop and prove the allegations. Id. (citing Brown v. State, 798 So.2d 481, 491 (Miss.2001); Smith v. State, 477 So.2d 191, 195 (Miss.1985); Turner v. State, 590 So.2d 871, 874 (Miss. 1991); and Jackson v. State, 732 So.2d 187, 190 (Miss.1999)). Thus, Branch's argument that M.R.A.P. 22(c) violates his federal and state constitutional rights is without merit.