Johns v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CT-00716-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00716-SCT ; 2003-CA-00716-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-06-2006 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Easley, JJ. Dissenting Author : Randolph, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-06-2003 Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: Johns was convicted of aggravated assault in the Circuit Court of Pike County and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. Motion for PCR was denied. District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 03-022-B |
|
| Note: | The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court and denied rehearing on July 26, 2005. The supreme court granted Johns’s petition for writ of certiorari and found that Johns did not receive constitutionally effective assistance of counsel and reversed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Pike County Circuit Court, and remanded this case for a new trial. See original COA opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO23690.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Oliver Johns, Jr. |
PRO SE |
||
| 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: | Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Oliver Johns was convicted of aggravated assault and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. Johns appealed the conviction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari filed in Johns’ direct appeal. Johns then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The Court granted Johns’s petition for post-conviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing was held in the trial court, Johns’s motion for post-conviction relief was denied. Johns appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Johns argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The record shows that Johns’ attorney met with Johns four times, and two of those meetings lasted less than forty-five minutes. It is abundantly clear that the primary purpose of the meetings with his client was not to conduct any pre-trial investigation or preparation, but to obtain cash from the defendant and his family. There is absolutely no documentary evidence that the attorney even undertook the minimal task of creating and maintaining a file on Johns. He never showed his client any documents or evidence related to his defense. He even admitted, and the record supports, that he did not file a single pre-trial pleading. The attorney’s testimony was not reliable. The only fact of which he was certain was that he did not remember. The trial court judge’s reliance on the attorney’s testimony as credible is clearly erroneous. Johns’ primary argument was that his attorney failed to interview the alibi witnesses that he provided the attorney before trial, which was, in effect, a claim that the attorney failed to perform the proper pre-trial investigation. At a minimum, counsel has a duty to interview potential witnesses and to make independent investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case. The attorney did not meet the minimum duty required of him. Both Johns and his father agree the attorney was given the names and addresses of the alibi witnesses and was asked to contact those witnesses. In fact, they made several attempts to press him to do so. Johns testified the attorney told him the witnesses were not important, even though they remembered seeing Johns and his young daughter very close to the time the crime was committed. The attorney failed to conduct any discovery other than his alleged visit to the crime scene and his request that the state turn over discovery. Assuming he went to the scene, he went on a blind mission, looking for people who looked like they might have known something or seen something. There were homeowners on the street where the shooting occurred. As a matter of fact, some evidence was found in their yards. The attorney did not even talk to them about what they saw. There is no question that the defendant is entitled to a basic defense. The facts of this case clearly show this basic defense was not provided to Johns. The testimony of the alibi witnesses was not rebutted by the prosecution. The prosecution was successful in proving that the memory of the witnesses was faulty when remembering months and years that they spoke to attorneys regarding this incident and in remembering when they signed affidavits. However, at no time did the content of the affidavits come into question; at no time did the veracity of the witnesses come into question; at no time was it established that any of them had motive to do anything other than state the truth. Johns’ alibi defense raises an issue of fact to be resolved by the jury. The jury should have been given an opportunity to hear, assess, and evaluate the testimony of these alibi witnesses. That did not happen because Johns’ attorney was ineffective. The testimony of the alibi witnesses, coupled with the fact that there was absolutely no physical evidence to convict Johns, could very well have changed the outcome of the trial. Therefore, the case is remanded for a new trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
