Opinion ID: 1103979
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: cumulative effect of counsel's failure to make contemporaneous objections denied petitioner a fundamentally fair trial.

Text: ¶ 77. Puckett contends that defense counsel was ineffective for failure to object during several instances at trial. He maintains that, although each incident may not amount to reversible error alone, the aggregate of the instances constitutes reversible error. ¶ 78. Puckett first asserts that his counsel should have objected to the prosecutor's line of questioning during cross-examination of Puckett with regards to the Canebrake incident. Puckett does not indicate on what grounds his defense counsel should have objected or why the prosecutor's line of questioning was inappropriate. In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the post-conviction applicant to this Court must demonstrate with specificity and detail the elements of the claim. Woodward v. State, 635 So.2d 805, 808 (Miss.1993); Foster v. State, 687 So.2d at 1141. Puckett has failed to do so. ¶ 79. Puckett next asserts that his counsel failed to object to the prosecutor's statements made during testimony of Dr. Michael West. The prosecutor was questioning Dr. West with regards to finding finger prints on the murder weapon. The prosecutor stated You don't have to be a police officer to obtain fingerprints. I can do that. Puckett maintains that his counsel should have objected to the prosecutor's improperly expressing his personal opinions and ask the court to instruct the jury to disregard the prosecutor's comments. The transcript contains the following dialogue: Q [By Mr. Jones]: Did you make any effort to obtain any kind of fingerprints off that stick? A [By Dr. West]: Yes, sir. Q: What type of effort did you make? MR. ADELMAN: Your Honor, this witness hasn't been qualified as a fingerprint expert. MR. JONES: You don't have to be an expert to be an expert to obtain fingerprints. I'm not going to offer any prints in. You don't have to be a police officer to obtain prints. I can do that. MR. ADLEMAN He's not been qualified that he has any expertise in even taking fingerprints. MR. JONES: I'm not asking for an opinion on that. I'm just asking if he made any effort to obtain fingerprints. THE COURT: Well, let's find out if he did it, and then you may attempt to Q: Did you? Did you make any effort to obtain finger prints? A: Yes, sir. Q: Were you able to do so? A: No, sir. ¶ 80. It is clear from the transcript that Puckett's attorney had objected to Dr. West's qualifications in lifting latent finger prints. As the State properly points out, no finger print evidence was offered by the State against Puckett through the testimony of Dr. West or anyone else. Puckett does not allege prejudice, and it cannot be maintained that Puckett was actually prejudiced by the comment made by the prosecutor. This claim certainly does not pass the ineffective assistance of counsel standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington , or its progeny. ¶ 81. Third, Puckett asserts that his counsel failed to object to questions regarding burglary. Because the burglary portion of his indictment was dismissed on the motion of the State, Puckett asserts that any reference to burglary was highly prejudicial. ¶ 82. On direct appeal, Puckett claimed that it was reversible error for the prosecutor to inquire about Puckett's post- Miranda silence. Puckett, 737 So.2d at 347. Although no objection to that line of questioning was made by Puckett, this Court did discuss the merits to see if Puckett's fundamental rights had been violated. Id. at 350. In that discussion on the merits, this Court stated the following: ¶ 86. In the case at bar, after being placed under arrest and being read his Miranda warnings, Puckett made voluntary statements to his mother as well as to law enforcement officials. Specifically, in addition to other statements, Puckett made a comment to the effect that this is a lot of law enforcement for somebody who just committed a burglary. This statement is inconsistent with his assertion at trial, that he had hid in the woods because he was scared of David Griffis after witnessing Griffis brutally murder his wife. Puckett's statement upon his arrest indicated that he was running from the police after committing a burglary. However, Puckett's statement at trial indicate that he was running from the police because he was afraid of Griffis. Therefore, the prosecutor's questions upon cross-examination are admissible under Miss. R. Evid. 613 to show that Puckett's prior statements were inconsistent with his statements at trial. Id. at 351 (emphasis added). ¶ 83. This Court has already determined that the questions asked by the prosecutor regarding burglary were permissible. Puckett is barred from raising the issue again in the form of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We must caution that other issues which were either presented through direct appeal or could have been presented on direct appeal or at trial are procedurally barred and cannot be relitigated under the guise of poor representation by counsel. Foster v. State, 687 So.2d at 1129. ¶ 84. Further, without waiving the procedural bar, the issue is without merit. Puckett himself inserted burglary into his trial while being cross-examined. As part of his defense, Puckett maintained that he was merely going to burglarize the Griffis home in order to find money to pay his truck note. Puckett, 737 So.2d at 329. It is clear that the references to burglary were not objectionable. ¶ 85. Puckett claims that he was denied a fundamentally fair trial due to defense counsel's failure to object in the aforementioned instances. In Doss v. State, 709 So.2d 369 (Miss.1996), this Court held that [w]here there is no reversible error in any part, .... there is no reversible error to the whole. Id. at 401 (quoting McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 136 (Miss.1987)). This Court has held that a murder conviction or a death sentence can still not warrant a reversal where the cumulative effect of alleged errors, if any, was procedurally barred. Id. (citing Davis v. State, 660 So.2d 1228, 1256 (Miss.1995) ( See also Simmons v. State, 805 So.2d 452 (Miss. 2001))). Puckett's claim of cumulative error is without merit.