Opinion ID: 1809395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to develop and present compelling evidence of Havard's childhood and family life in mitigation of punishment.

Text: ¶ 35. Issues II and III both involve claims of ineffective assistance of counsel arising from the assertion that trial counsel failed to investigate, develop, and present mitigation evidence. Therefore, these issues will be discussed together. ¶ 36. On direct appeal, Havard argued that trial counsel were ineffective for not developing and presenting compelling evidence in mitigation of punishment. In Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 525, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2537, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003), the United States Supreme Court stated that any reasonably competent attorney would realize the value in pursuing leads necessary to making an informed choice among possible defenses. Id. In what the Court called a half-hearted mitigation case, trial counsel in Wiggins presented one expert witness but did not present the defendant's life history or social details. Id. ¶ 37. This Court has held that [i]t is critical that mitigating evidence be presented at capital sentencing proceedings. Leatherwood v. State, 473 So.2d 964, 970 (Miss.1985). This Court recognized in State v. Tokman, 564 So.2d 1339 (Miss. 1990), that counsel has a duty to interview potential witnesses and to make an independent investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case. Id. at 1342. Additionally, [i]n Stringer v. Jackson, 862 F.2d 1108, 1116 (5th Cir.1988), the Fifth Circuit held that the failure to present a case in mitigation during the sentencing phase of a capital trial is not, per se, ineffective assistance of counsel. We have in the past recognized the Stringer rule. See Gray [v. State], 887 So.2d [158,] at 167 (Miss.2004). See also Williams v. State, 722 So.2d 447, 450 (Miss.1998) (citing Williams v. Cain, 125 F.3d 269, 277 (5th Cir.1997)). We have relied on Stringer in cases before us on direct appeal. The focus of the inquiry must be whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances. Jones v. State, 857 So.2d 740, 745 (Miss.2003) (life imprisonment sentence following murder conviction). This court has often upheld decisions not to put on mitigating evidence where the decision resulted from a strategic choice. Howard v. State, 853 So.2d 781, 799 (Miss.2003) (quoting Stringer, 862 F.2d at 1116) (death sentence following capital murder conviction). Havard, 928 So.2d at 795. ¶ 38. Havard submitted several affidavits on direct appeal from friends and family, as well as from a social worker who reviewed Havard's life history. Again, because the former Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 was found to be controlling at the time of Havard's direct appeal, this Court considered the issue absent the outside-the-record affidavits, but also held that Havard preserved the issue for post-conviction proceedings. Id. ¶ 39. In reviewing the issue on direct appeal, the Court ruled adversely to Havard, finding that, [g]iven the testimony provided in mitigation and what it did show the jury about Havard's life and tendencies, we simply cannot find ... prejudicial deficiency in trial counsel's performance. Id. The Court is now asked to revisit this issue in conjunction with the affidavits of Havard's family, friends, and the social worker. ¶ 40. Just as on direct appeal, Havard again argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel called only two witnesses in mitigation, and he alleges that counsel did not prepare the two witnesses for trial or investigate other potential mitigating evidence. The state points out that, during the examination of Cheryl Harrell, she was asked to describe her relationship with Havard. She was asked about Havard's relationship with his stepfather, Gordon Harrell. Counsel asked her about Havard's relationship with his biological father. Counsel also asked Harrell to tell the jury why Havard should not receive the death penalty. These open-ended questions allowed the jury to learn that Havard and his mother have always been close; that Havard moved in with his grandparents when he was thirteen because of something he had seen happen at school; that Havard visited his mother every chance he got; that Havard was born out of wedlock and that he did not meet his biological father until he was sixteen; and that Havard's father never had a place in his life and never supported him. Cheryl Harrell also described her son as a kind, tender-loving person and discussed his love for children. She told the jury about how Havard came to the defense of his niece, a child afflicted with Down's Syndrome, when she was ridiculed by others, and how Havard cared for his younger half-brother when he was young. ¶ 41. The second mitigation witness called by the defense was Havard's grandmother, Ruby Havard. She was asked similar open-ended questions, and the jury was told about how Havard allowed Rebecca Britt and Chloe to move in with him; about how hard Havard worked at his job; and about Havard had told her that he planned to ask Rebecca Britt to marry him so that he could take care of her and Chloe. She told the jury that Havard is a loving person and that he loves children. She explained that Havard had two pictures of Chloe in his billfold and how Havard dearly loved that baby. ¶ 42. The state argues that the affidavits are cumulative of testimony the jury heard, and that most of them contain more damning evidence than praising. In the affidavit of Marilyn Cox, Havard's aunt, she stated that Havard's grandfather, William Havard, used to hit Havard's mother and uncle when they argued with him as children and that William once broke Ruby's nose. Marilyn also concluded that Havard's stepfather, Gordon Harrell, beat Havard because Ruby told Marilyn of bruises found on Havard's body. Marilyn stated that she, too, found bruises on Havard's back and behind. Marilyn never stated that she saw Havard being beaten or that she had any other firsthand knowledge. In the same paragraph in which she concluded that Havard was beaten, Marilyn stated that Cheryl was worried about Havard and agreed that he should go live with his grandparents. Ironically, Cheryl and Ruby, who both testified at trial and now asserted in their affidavits that counsel never interviewed them, did not paint the same picture as Marilyn. Cheryl stated in her affidavit that Havard went to live with his grandparents because of the violence in the schools where he was living. This is consistent with her trial testimony and Ruby's trial testimony. Marilyn's affidavit adds nothing to the testimony heard by the jury except hearsay of Havard's abuse by his stepfather. ¶ 43. William Havard stated in his affidavit that Havard was like a son to him. William stated that he knew Gordon was whipping on Havard. Again, nothing in the affidavit stated that he ever witnessed these events. He did state that Gordon had a temper and Gordon once kicked in William's front door, forcing William to call the police. William's affidavit then took a turn and negatively described his relationship with Havard. William explained how he bought Havard a truck so he could get to and from work, but Jeffrey quit as soon as he got it. He stated that Havard caused problems, such as staying out late. Havard would not listen to his grandfather and would get into arguments because Havard did not like being told what to do. In fact, William explained how he sometimes had to call the police to calm him down. Havard's grandparents had to ask a neighbor to call the police because Havard would not let his grandparents get to their phone. William provided Havard with a trailer up the street. Ruby Havard testified at trial that they provided the trailer, paid the utilities and part of the groceries. William further stated in his affidavit that Havard would have people over using drugs, and that William and Ruby did not approve of Havard's drug activities. ¶ 44. Daniel Bradshaw, Havard's friend since childhood, went to the Youth Challenge Program at Camp Shelby with Havard. He described how Havard's family did not attend Havard's graduation from Camp Shelby, so Havard went to lunch with Daniel's family. Daniel discussed how Havard came to live with him and his wife, Australia. Daniel trained Havard to work on boats. Daniel stated that Havard started using a lot of drugs, hanging out with the wrong crowd. Daniel stated that Havard loved children and would take care of their son when Daniel and Australia went out. ¶ 45. Australia Bradshaw, also Havard's childhood friend, described how she met Havard at church after he moved in with his grandparents. She described him as happy go lucky. She corroborated Daniel's affidavit about Havard and Daniel being together at Camp Shelby and how Havard came to live with them when Havard had problems with his grandfather. She described Havard's grandfather getting angry with Havard when Havard stayed out late. She stated that Havard would say hurtful words to his grandfather. She also witnessed when the police came to the house of Havard's grandfather a couple of times when they had gotten into it because Jeffrey would race around in his truck and screech his tires. She described Havard and his grandfather as stubborn. She also told of Havard watching her son. ¶ 46. Etta White, Havard's co-worker, described him as super, he has a great personality and is a good work colleague. She told of Havard stopping by to offer help when he saw Etta out working in the yard. ¶ 47. Cheryl Harrell's affidavit restated her trial testimony but also offered new information that she did not tell the jury during Havard's sentencing hearing. She described her father fighting and getting physical with her brothers when they were young, but did not mention that she was beaten as described by Marilyn. Cheryl described her father as thinking that Jeffrey was sent by the Lord to replace her brother after his death, and William brought lots of gifts when Jeffrey was born. William and Ruby let Cheryl and Jeffrey live with them for a year until Cheryl met her husband, Gordon. Cheryl stated that it was hard raising Havard and he did get spankings. As previously discussed, she stated that Havard went to live with his grandparents because of the violence in the schools. When speaking of Havard's grandparents, Cheryl stated, Jeffrey was always rewarded by them and never punished. He was their favorite, they would do things for him that they wouldn't do for the other grandchildren. Ironically, Cheryl never discussed Havard being abused by his stepfather at trial or in her affidavit. None of the other affiants stated that they witnessed it or that Havard ever told them that he was abused. ¶ 48. Ruby Havard's affidavit placed blame for Havard's problems with his stepfather, whom she described as having a temper. She stated that Gordon beat Havard, but did not state that she ever witnessed or was told of these beatings. She remembered Havard came to visit once, and he was black and blues with bruises. She then stated that Cheryl was concerned when Havard was growing up because she was worried Havard would start to fight back against Gordon and cause more trouble. Ruby never mentioned any of this at trial. She testified that Havard asked if he could go live with his grandparents because [h]e liked the schools. In her affidavit, Ruby then described him as dropping out of high school, attending the Youth Challenge Program, and getting his GED. Havard was offered a job as a peer mentor in the program, and William and Ruby bought him a truck so he could travel to his job. She stated that Havard used drugs, and when confronted about it, he would say ugly things like he wished he had never come to live with us. They never had a chance to punish Havard because he would get in his truck and leave. ¶ 49. Adrian Dorsey Kidd, a social worker who was asked by post-conviction counsel to review Havard's social history record and notes of mitigation interviews with Havard's family and friends, clearly noted that she never personally interviewed Havard or a single family member or friend. Ms. Kidd's affidavit amounted to a compilation of school records, records from the Youth Challenge Program at Camp Shelby, interview notes from those who personally interviewed Havard, affidavits from Havard's family members and friends, interview notes from those who interviewed Havard's family members and friends, Havard's employment records, and incident reports from various sheriffs' departments. ¶ 50. Ms. Kidd speculated that Havard suffered from a attachment disorder and provided a lengthy, general description of the effects of the disorder. Ms. Kidd reached the conclusion that the disorder caused Havard to have problems developing loving and secure attachments. As the state points out, this conclusion is in conflict with the affidavits of family and friends, who described Havard as a loving and good person for whom they would do anything. A review of Ms. Kidd's affidavit reveals a recitation of various records and statements of others amounting to little more than speculation. ¶ 51. The affidavits presented in this post-conviction proceeding contain information that is cumulative of the testimony given at trial. The statements provided in the affidavits regarding Havard's abuse do not even amount to hearsay. None of the affiants stated that they witnessed any abuse or that Havard ever told them that he had been abused. Havard himself did not mention abuse in his own affidavit. The remainder of the statements in the affidavits reflected negatively on Havard's character. The sum of these affidavits paints a picture of Havard being raised by grandparents who provided opportunities for him, but Havard chose to take drugs, argue and say hurtful things to those who had his best interest at heart  often resulting in law enforcement officials having to be called to calm him down. ¶ 52. Havard's counsel are presumed competent. Washington v. State, 620 So.2d 966 (Miss.1993). As already noted, the affidavit of Don Evans, an investigator hired to investigate mitigation evidence, is telling of counsels' effort to investigate. Counsel called two witnesses who gave intelligent and specific mitigation testimony. Not calling witnesses who will testify negatively for a client or who will testify to matters cumulative in nature is not deficient performance by counsel. Additionally, even if this Court were to assume arguendo that Havard's counsel were deficient, Havard has failed to show that he would have received a different sentence. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 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. Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468, 477 (Miss.1984) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052). This issue is without merit.