Opinion ID: 1809395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 33

Heading: Competency of trial counsel.

Text: ¶ 83. In this next issue, Havard asserts that Robert E. Clark, one of Havard's defense attorneys, was incompetent to pursue legal relief on Havard's behalf. It is Havard's further assertion that Clark was intoxicated during Havard's trial, because in a newspaper clipping describing Clark's arrest, the Concordia Parish Sheriff, Randy Maxwell, stated, We've been working on this a while. Wesley Steckler and Katie Stallcup, Attorney Arrested on Drug Charges, The Natchez Democrat, Jan. 16, 2007, at 1A and 3A. ¶ 84. Ironically, Havard states in his affidavit that he saw Clark use marijuana, ecstacy, and crack-cocaine the first time Havard met Clark around November of 2001. Between that time and the time Clark was appointed as Havard's counsel, Havard states that he went to Clark's home two or three more times to hang out and use drugs. The last time was two weeks before Havard was arrested. By Havard's own admission, he knew and believed his counsel to use drugs. Any concerns Havard may have had regarding his counsel's drug use was certainly capable of being raised at trial or on direct appeal, and the issue is procedurally barred. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1) (Rev.2007). ¶ 85. Notwithstanding the procedural bar, Havard's assertion that Clark was intoxicated during his trial is speculation at best and without merit. Havard states in his affidavit that he believes his family told the judge that he was not comfortable having Clark as his attorney but I don't think they went into great detail as to why I felt that way. I do believe that is why Gus Sermos was appointed to represent me as well.... Havard further states that he was concerned drugs were affecting Clark's performance but did not say anything because he was in enough trouble with the murder charge and was afraid that admitting I used drugs with Clark, might make my situation worse. ¶ 86. Havard has presented nothing to this Court thus far that has shown an indicia of unfairness or prejudice at Havard's trial. Additionally, Attorney Gus Sermos also represented Havard at trial. Finally, each and every claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, or otherwise, alleged by Havard on direct appeal and in these post-conviction proceedings, has been found to be without merit. This issue is, likewise, without merit.