Branch v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-DR-01086-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2004-DR-01086-SCT ; 2004-DR-01086-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-17-2007
Opinion Author: Carlson, J.
Holding: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, DENIED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Res judicata - Ineffective assistance of counsel - M.R.A.P. 22(c) - Mental retardation
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Diaz, P.J.
Dissent Joined By : Graves, J.
Procedural History: After the court affirmed his capital murder conviction and death sentence, Branch filed PRC with the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DEATH PENALTY - POST CONVICTION

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-23-2002
Appealed from: Carroll County Circuit Court
Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III
Case Number: 2001-0003CR1

Note: Motion for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court with a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief filed by counsel for petitioner is denied.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Lawrence Branch




MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF CAPITAL POSTCONVICTION COUNSEL



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  

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: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Res judicata - Ineffective assistance of counsel - M.R.A.P. 22(c) - Mental retardation

Summary of the Facts: Lawrence Branch’s capital murder conviction and death sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. Branch has now filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief with Exhibits and an Amendment to the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief with Exhibits.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Res judicata Branch argues that the claims raised in his petition for post-conviction relief are so meritorious and of such a nature that the procedural bar known as the doctrine of res judicata should not apply in this case. Each of the issues raised by Branch in his PCR and his amended PCR will be reviewed to see if he has demonstrated a novel claim or a sudden reversal of law relative to his claim that would excuse him from the procedural bar. If Branch has not made such a showing, the procedural bar of res judicata applies. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Branch argues that procedural bars should not apply because the direct appeal process did not allow him an adequate opportunity to present a fully developed argument to support his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. He argues that the direct appeal process does not allow him access to the files of trial counsel, law enforcement officials, and the prosecutor, or allow him to secure a mitigation expert or an evidentiary hearing, otherwise available under M.R.A.P. 22(c), (d), and (e). Branch raised the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, and the Court allowed consideration of the extraneous material. If new counsel on direct appeal is required to assert collateral claims, there must be an opportunity to submit extraneous facts and discovery and evidentiary hearing to develop and prove the allegations. Thus, Branch’s argument that M.R.A.P. 22(c) violates his federal and state constitutional rights is without merit. Branch argues that if his appellate counsel was duty-bound to present post-conviction claims on direct appeal, then his appellate counsel was ineffective in the manner in which Branch’s mental health was presented. Branch’s appellate counsel presented evidence on direct appeal, over the State’s objection, in support of Branch’s mental retardation claim. Once the Court affirmed Branch’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal, Branch’s appellate counsel filed a motion for rehearing with an additional affidavit. Counsel for Branch then placed this issue before the United States Supreme Court in a petition for writ of certiorari. Therefore, Branch has failed to show that his appellate counsel was deficient. Issue 3: Mental retardation Branch argues that he has not been afforded an opportunity to present a mental retardation claim. Branch’s argument that he has not had a single opportunity to present a mental retardation claim is false. The issue of Branch’s mental retardation was considered on its merits. In Chase v. State, 873 So. 2d 1013 (Miss. 2004), the Court held that Chase could not be constitutionally denied the opportunity to present his mental retardation claim to the trial court where he had demonstrated that his IQ fell within the range of possible mental retardation, and he presented an affidavit of a mental health care professional that he suffered from “mild retardation.” Branch has not complied with the necessary procedures nor provided the necessary documentation to rightfully comply with the holding in Chase.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court