Opinion ID: 1464908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: P.S. She'll write or I'll sell this address.

Text: During the penalty phase, defense counsel called Mr. Middleton's brother-in-law, Paul Oglesbee, who was married to Mr. Middleton's sister Rose, to describe the symptoms that he observed Mr. Middleton display when Mr. Middleton was a user of methamphetamine. On cross-examination, the state, attempting to show that Mr. Middleton continued to be aggressive even after he stopped using methamphetamine, questioned Mr. Oglesbee about a letter that Mr. Middleton wrote the Oglesbees that contained the phrase, P.S. She'll write or I'll sell this address. During cross-examination, Mr. Oglesbee testified that he believed that Mr. Middleton meant this phrase to be a threatthat he was putting a contract on us for a hit. Mr. Middleton contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying multiple claims related to the prosecution's use of the letter. First, he argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Mr. Oglesbee's testimony that he and his wife thought the phrase meant that Mr. Middleton was going to place a hit on them. Much of his argument presupposes that the phrase did not constitute a threat. Clearly, however, Mr. Oglesbee believed it was a threat. In considering capital punishment, the jury is entitled to a wide range of helpful information. State v. Morrow, 968 S.W.2d 100, 114-15 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 896, 119 S.Ct. 222, 142 L.Ed.2d 182 (1998). See also State v. Gilyard, 979 S.W.2d 138, 143 (Mo. banc 1998). The decision to impose the death penalty ... is the most serious decision society makes about an individual, and the decision-maker is entitled to any evidence that assists in that determination. State v. Debler, 856 S.W.2d 641, 656 (Mo. banc 1993). Evidence that Mr. Middleton made such a threat was relevant and admissible on the issue of defendant's character. See State v. Clay, 975 S.W.2d 121, 132 (Mo. banc 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1085, 119 S.Ct. 834, 142 L.Ed.2d 690 (1999). Second, Mr. Middleton alleges counsel was ineffective for failing to refute Mr. Oglesbee's testimony by calling Brian Fifer, who was a fellow inmate of Mr. Middleton's when Mr. Middleton was incarcerated in Iowa. He alleges that Mr. Fifer would have testified that the phrase I'll sell this address is not a threat, but is merely jailhouse slang for if you don't write me back, I will not continue to write you. This claim is also without merit. As this Court ruled in rejecting an identical claim on appeal of denial of relief in the Callaway County case: Defendant [Mr. Middleton] introduced no evidence that he told, or that his counsel should have known, that sell this address was not a threat. Without knowing (or being told by defendant) that the phrase had unique meaning among prisoners, counsel had no reason to question other prisoners. Counsel was not ineffective for not finding this witness [Brian Fifer]. Middleton, 80 S.W.3d at 810. Here, also, Mr. Middleton has offered no evidence that he told counsel that sell this address was not a threat or that he informed counsel about the existence of Mr. Fifer and the latter's ability and willingness to testify. Accordingly, the court did not err in finding counsel was not ineffective in failing to call Mr. Fifer. Third, Mr. Middleton claims that the letter constituted non-statutory aggravating circumstances that he should have had prior notice of, but was not informed of until the day of Mr. Oglesbee's testimony, and therefore it should not have been admitted. This constitutes a claim of trial error in admission of the document. Such claims must be raised on direct appeal and are not cognizable in a post-conviction motion. State v. Carter, 955 S.W.2d 548, 555 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1052, 118 S.Ct. 1374, 140 L.Ed.2d 522 (1998). Finally, perhaps because he is aware of this rule, Mr. Middleton also alleges that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on appeal that he was prejudiced by the prosecution's late disclosure of the letter. But, the trial judge addressed this issue and determined that the letter was timely disclosed as soon as the prosecution received it and that defense counsel had been made aware of the letter and its contents during the Oglesbees' depositions. Mr. Middleton offers no reason why the trial judge's determination of timely disclosure was erroneous and, if raised, would have led to reversal.