Powers v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-DR-02810-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-DR-02810-SCT ; 2003-DR-02810-SCT ; 2003-DR-02810-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-19-2006 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Application for Leave to File Motion for Post-Conviction Relief, Denied. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Procedural bars - Aggravating factors - Cruel and unusual punishment - Impartial jury - Sufficiency of evidence - Proportionality of death sentence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: Motion for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-15-2000 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Richard W. McKenzie Disposition: Powers was charged with capital murder. Powers was convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection. District Attorney: E. Lindsey Carter Case Number: 98-114-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Stephen Elliot Powers |
OFFICE OF CAPITAL POST-CONVICTION 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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Procedural bars - Aggravating factors - Cruel and unusual punishment - Impartial jury - Sufficiency of evidence - Proportionality of death sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Stephen Powers was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by lethal injection. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Powers now requests leave to seek post-conviction relief in the trial court. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was raised by Powers on direct appeal and found to be without merit. Powers now raises additional instances of alleged professional error by trial counsel which were not presented on direct appeal. These additional issues were capable of presentation on direct appeal; therefore, collateral review of the issue as a whole is procedurally barred by the post-conviction relief statute. Powers argues that trial counsel was ineffective for not countering the testimony of the forensic pathologist with an expert of his own and offers the affidavit of a forensic dentist. It is highly doubtful that any expert testimony regarding the positioning of the body would have likely resulted in a different verdict. Powers argues that his counsel failed to challenge peremptory strikes. Powers’ trial jury unquestionably had only one African-American juror; however, on direct appeal the Court specifically held that, from the totality of the record on this issue, there was no viable Batson claim to be raised by trial counsel. Powers argues that his counsel failed to present mitigating evidence. This issue was specifically presented and rejected on direct appeal, and is now procedurally barred from collateral review. Issue 2: Procedural bars Powers argues that the legal landscape of death penalty appeals has changed and that the new guidelines for defense counsel in capital post-conviction cases illustrates that his trial counsel was somehow not qualified to represent him such that he should be allowed to present claims not previously made, or to again present claims previously decided. The right to effective counsel simply affords the right to have competent counsel, not to errorless counsel. An alleged error should be reviewed, in spite of any procedural bar, only where the claim has not previously been litigated or where an appellate court has reversed itself on an issue previously submitted. Such is not the case here and the issue is therefore without merit. Issue 3: Aggravating factors Powers argues that his death sentence must be vacated because the aggravating circumstances which charged capital murder were not included in the indictment. A defendant is not entitled to formal notice in the indictment of the aggravating circumstances to be employed by the prosecution inasmuch as a capital murder indictment puts a defendant on sufficient notice that the statutory aggravating factors will be used against him. Issue 4: Cruel and unusual punishment Powers argues that he has suffered cruel and unusual punishment simply by being placed on death row. A claim based on the Eighth Amendment could have been raised on direct appeal and is now procedurally barred from further consideration. Issue 5: Impartial jury Powers argues that during the course of deliberations, a juror made it known that he was personally acquainted with the victim because she had delivered packages to his door. The record reflects, however, that the juror stated during voir dire that he was an acquaintance of the victim. Powers cannot now claim surprise or any other prejudice to his defense. Issue 6: Sufficiency of evidence Powers argues that there was insufficient evidence of an attempted rape. This issue was thoroughly discussed on direct appeal. The Court found that based upon all the direct evidence, and especially the physical evidence at the crime scene as depicted, inter alia, by the color photographs of the victim, the jury could reasonably find that an attempted rape occurred. Issue 7: Proportionality of death sentence The proportionality issue was addressed on direct appeal and is thus procedurally barred. The Court found that there is no evidence supporting a finding that Powers’ death sentence was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor and that the evidence supported the finding that all the statutory aggravating circumstances were present and had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
