Turner v. State
| Docket Number: | 1999-DR-01828-SCT Linked Case(s): 1999-DR-01828-SCT ; 1999-DR-01828-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-04-2007 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Death sentence - Proportionality review Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Diaz, Easley, Carlson, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-15-1997 Appealed from: Carroll County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: A jury first found him guilty of two counts of capital murder and subsequently found that Turner should be sentenced to death for both murders. Both through counsel and pro se, Turner now asks this Court to grant him postconviction relief pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. Sections 99-39-1, et seq. He raises numerous issues, primarily related to effectiveness of his attorneys at trial and on appeal. After a thorough review of the claims raised in the petitions, the Court finds that Turner failed to establish that his attorneys were ineffective and that the other claims raised in the petitions lack merit. Accordingly, the petitions are denied. Case Number: 3176 |
|
| Note: | Application for Leave to File Motion to Vacate Conviction and Death Sentence filed by counsel for petitioner is denied. Pro Se Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is denied. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Edwin Hart Turner |
JAMES W. CRAIG
JANE E. TUCKER |
||
| 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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Death sentence - Proportionality review |
| Summary of the Facts: | Edwin Turner was convicted of two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death for both murders. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Turner now asks the Court to grant him post-conviction relief. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Turner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Turner first argues that his attorneys were ineffective in asking that venue be transferred from Carroll County. Turner had the right to be tried in Carroll County. However, he waived that right and venue was properly transferred to Forrest County. In the absence of remand, the issue of where he would like to be tried is moot. Turner asserts that his attorneys were ineffective in requesting that venue be transferred, but fails to offer proof that would demonstrate that the attorneys’ performance was deficient. Any prejudice claimed by Turner is entirely hypothetical. Additionally, Turner cannot overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, seeking a change of venue was sound trial strategy. Turner claims that during jury selection, his lawyers should have made a motion pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky. Turner makes no specific claim as to any individual juror and he offers no specific questionable peremptory challenge utilized by the State. Turner argues that his attorneys were ineffective in failing to appeal the trial judge’s decision not to grant a severance of the charges. Much of the evidence at trial related to both crimes. Clearly, the two murders were interwoven. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its decision not to sever the counts. Accordingly, the attorneys’ failure to raise that issue on appeal is of no consequence. Turner argues that his attorney on appeal was ineffective for failing to raise the issue of the prosecutor’s statement during closing argument which was an improper comment on Turner’s decision not to testify. The prosecutor’s comment here was a fair response to the defense’s claim that the State failed to call some witnesses who could have been helpful to the jury. As the closing argument was not improper, the appellate attorney was not required to raise that issue on appeal. Turner argues that his attorney was ineffective in failing to present an argument on appeal concerning a lesser-included offense instruction. Whether Turner was entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction has been addressed and is now barred from further consideration. In addition, no lesser included offense instruction was warranted, and no amount of argument could change that fact. Turner argues that his attorneys failed to present an adequate case in the mitigation phase of his trial. Generally, an attorney's decision to call certain witnesses and ask certain questions falls within the ambit of trial strategy and cannot give rise to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Turner argues that his attorneys were ineffective in the presentation of the mitigation case by opening the door to evidence of prior instances of bad conduct. There is no evidence in the record that counsel were ineffective in their presentation of the case in mitigation. Turner argues that his attorneys should have requested a mistrial when the district attorney asked defense witnesses if they were aware of allegations that Turner had beaten his mother and threatened his stepfather. As the Court has already found on direct appeal that the questions were permissible, Turner cannot show that his attorneys were ineffective in failing to seek a mistrial on that issue. Issue 2: Death sentence The State chose to present to the jury one aggravating factor justifying the death penalty. Turner argues that the State’s argument about the brutality of the crime allowed the jury to return its verdict on evidence outside the pecuniary gain aggravating factor and that the sentence must therefore be voided. This issue was decided and rejected on direct appeal. Issue 3: Proportionality review Turner argues that the Court’s review of the proportionality of the death sentence on direct appeal was inadequate. The issue has already been decided and is procedurally barred. A review of relevant Supreme Court decisions in other capital cases confirms that the punishment here is proportionate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
