Davis v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01770-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-03-2012 Opinion Author: Dickinson, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Mitigation witnesses - Reasonable independent investigation Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens and King, JJ. Dissenting Author : Chandler, J. Dissent Joined By : Pierce, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-29-2010 Appealed from: Greene County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Krebs Disposition: Convicted of murder and sentensed to death. Subsequently denied petition for PCR. Case Number: 2002-12-091(1) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Jeffrey Keller Davis |
OFFICE OF CAPITAL POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL BY:
GLENN S. SWARTZFAGER
LOUWLYNN VANZETTA WILLIAMS
AMY STRICKLAND |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: MARVIN L. WHITE, JR. | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Mitigation witnesses - Reasonable independent investigation |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 1992, Jeffrey Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. His conviction and sentenced were affirmed on appeal. Davis filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming, among other things, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his trial. Based on the evidence produced by Davis’s new counsel – that was available to, but never discovered or produced by, his trial counsel – the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief was reversed and remanded for a new sentencing trial. At the close of the hearing, the circuit court denied Davis’s petition for post-conviction relief, holding that Davis’s counsel was not ineffective. Davis appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Davis’s attorney had a duty to conduct a reasonable, independent investigation to seek out mitigation witnesses, facts, and evidence for the sentencing phase of Davis’s trial. Instead, he conducted no independent investigation, relying on witnesses whom Davis suggested, and whom the attorney failed to properly prepare. The attorney blames his failure to conduct an independent investigation on his incorrect understanding that Davis was not from the local community. In fact, except for his service in the military, Davis had lived in the local community his entire life. The attorney’s representation was ineffective. Linda Davis – the deputy sheriff who worked at the jail where Davis was incarcerated, and who had observed him on a daily basis – could have, and would have ( had she been asked), testified that she had observed Davis’s good conduct in prison, and that he had achieved trusty status and had adjusted well to the prison environment. The attorney never interviewed Linda Davis or any of Davis’s other jailers, and he never sought to produce any evidence of Davis’s conduct while incarcerated. Furthermore, neither Linda Davis’s testimony concerning Davis’s conduct while incarcerated, nor testimony about his abuse, was cumulative of any evidence produced at the sentencing phase of Davis’s trial. No witness testified about his history of child abuse, his adjustment to incarceration, or his status as a trusty. Davis also argues that his counsel was ineffective for failure to communicate a plea offer tendered by the State the day before Davis’s trial. But the affidavits submitted with Davis’s post-conviction-relief petition contain conflicting accounts regarding whether the State actually tendered a plea offer. The circuit court correctly concluded that no enforceable plea offer was made. The case is remanded to the trial court to vacate Davis’s death sentence and hold a new trial on sentencing. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
