Cooper v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-02031-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-02031-COA ; 2009-CT-02031-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-23-2011 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - M.R.E. 403 Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Roberts and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers and Carlton, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, P.J., and Ishee, J., concur in part and in the result Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-18-2009 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2008-0237 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Jonathan Cooper a/k/a Jonathan Dewayne Cooper |
ROSS PARKER SIMONS
GEORGE T. KELLY JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA LYNN BLOUNT | ||
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 - M.R.E. 403 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jonathan Cooper was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted Cooper leave to file a motion for post-conviction relief in the trial court. Cooper filed his PCR motion which the trial court denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Cooper argues that his trial attorneys were ineffective, because they failed to move to amend his indictment to include the words “not in necessary self defense,” rather than seeking to quash the indictment; failed to voir dire Dr. Hayne; failed to sufficiently cross-examine Dr. Hayne; failed to call a rebuttal expert; failed to discuss discovery material with him; and failed to object to the State’s introduction of certain photographs. Because Cooper’s original indictment alleged Cooper committed the killing “unlawfully,” it was not defective. Since a motion to quash, if made, would not have been properly granted, Cooper cannot show prejudice with regard to his first claim. Nor is there any prejudice from the inclusion of the phrase “not in necessary self-defense” in the amended indictment, at Cooper’s attorneys’ request. The phrase was unnecessary, but its inclusion had no detrimental impact on Cooper’s defense. As a result, the phrase is surplusage. Cooper’s attorneys’ performance is not deficient for merely failing to challenge Dr. Hayne’s qualifications. The Supreme Court has consistently found Dr. Hayne qualified to render expert opinions in the field of forensic pathology in criminal cases. Cooper has also failed to explain how testing Dr. Hayne’s qualifications might have altered the result of his trial. With regard to Cooper’s claim that his counsel performed deficiently by not questioning Dr. Hayne concerning the victim’s head injuries, Cooper offers little explanation of how a more thorough cross-examination would have altered the outcome of his trial. He simply points out Dr. Hayne’s testimony was inconsistent with other trial testimony as to the number of blows to the victims head. Based on the record, including the photographs of the injuries to the victim’s head, Cooper’s attorneys were not deficient for choosing to limit cross-examination to the “defensive-posturing” issue. While there were varying accounts of how many blows Cooper received, there is often factually conflicting evidence in criminal cases. And it is the sole province of the jury to resolve conflicts and make witness-credibility determinations. Cooper’s concern with Dr. Hayne’s testimony relates to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Cooper claims his attorneys should have called a rebuttal expert. However, Cooper neither establishes that contradictory expert testimony exists, nor shows the substance of any such testimony. Thus, he cannot prove prejudice. Cooper contends his attorneys were ineffective because they “did not share discovery materials or trial strategies [with him] . . . during the investigation stage of his case.” But when Cooper testified at his post-conviction evidentiary hearing, he could not refute that his attorneys had reviewed his entire file. He also failed to even allege what specific information they failed to discuss with him. Nor does he allege with any specificity how this alleged nondisclosure affected the outcome of his trial. Cooper also argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of autopsy photographs taken by Dr. Hayne and admitted at trial, specifically a photograph depicting one of the victim’s head injuries. The photographs aid in describing the circumstances of the killing, describe the cause of death, and supplement and clarify Dr. Hayne’s testimony. Thus, the photographs easily pass through the filter of M.R.E. 403, and any objection to the photographs would have been unsuccessful and immaterial to the outcome of the trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
