Fair v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01705-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-06-2007 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of controlled substance - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-13-2005 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Al Smith Disposition: CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCED TO SIXTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER. District Attorney: LAURENCE Y. MELLEN Case Number: 2005-077-CR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | TERRY FAIR A/K/A TERRY A. FAIR |
JOHNNIE E. WALLS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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: | Possession of controlled substance - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Terry Fair was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to sixteen years as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Fair argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because his counsel failed to interview witnesses, failed to have witnesses available to testify on his behalf, failed to properly present Fair’s theory of the case, and failed to provide a jury instruction on the element of possession. Decisions of counsel to call or not to call certain witnesses fall within the ambit of trial strategy and are presumed reasonable. Furthermore, Fair failed to identify any witness who could testify on his behalf, and the failure of Fair’s counsel to call witnesses of whom he had no knowledge of their existence, cannot be characterized as error. Fair’s defense was not prejudiced by his counsel’s trial strategy in any significant way. Also, on the evidence presented at trial, the jury could not have returned any other verdict than that of guilty. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
