Davis v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00028-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-00028-SCT ; 2002-CA-00028-SCT ; 2002-CA-00028-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-01-2004 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Conflict of interest - Rulings in post-conviction proceedings Judge(s) Concurring: Cobb, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Smith, C.J., and Diaz, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DEATH PENALTY - POST CONVICTION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-04-2001 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: Post-conviction relief denied. Case Number: 251-98-1000 CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kenneth Leon Davis |
OFFICE OF CAPITAL POST-CONVICTION
COUNSEL
BY: DAVID PAUL VOISIN
ROBERT M. RYAN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: MARVIN L. WHITE, JR. |
|
|
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 - Conflict of interest - Rulings in post-conviction proceedings |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kenneth Davis was convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to death. His direct appeal was affirmed. His request for post-conviction relief was denied, and he appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Davis argues that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. He first argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to use an F.B.I. crime lab report to demonstrate that hair belonging to someone else, not Davis, was found on items of clothing supposedly worn by the perpetrator. However, exculpatory information was imparted to the jury through the defense's examination of the witness. The F.B.I. report was admitted into evidence and was available for the jury's review. The jury was informed that Davis's hairs were not found on any of the items submitted to the F.B.I. for analysis. Davis also argues that his attorneys failed to adequately object to false evidence concerning the aggravating circumstance that "the capital offense was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment." However, the attorneys objected repeatedly to any use of the Forrest County sentences as support for the "under sentence of imprisonment" aggravator and then raised that issue on appeal. There is no ineffective assistance of counsel where the attorneys raised the claims at trial and on appeal. Even if the aggravating circumstance related to commission of the crime while under sentence of imprisonment were discarded, the sentence of death would be affirmed. The jury found that the killing occurred in the course of the pawn shop robbery and that the killing was done for pecuniary gain. Issue 2: Conflict of interest Davis argues that his attorney represented him while under a conflict of interest and that he is entitled to a new trial with new counsel. His attorney, along with another lawyer, had represented the Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted the case for the State, in his divorce proceedings. The attorney testified at the post-conviction relief hearing that Davis had been informed of the former representation in the divorce case and had voiced no objection to continued representation the attorney. A thorough review of the record shows that Davis received zealous representation. There is nothing in the record which indicates a lack of full loyalty to Davis and his defense. Issue 3: Rulings during post-conviction proceedings Davis argues that the judge denied his attempts to broaden the scope of the proceedings and did not allow his post-conviction attorneys sufficient time in which to present and prepare for the hearing on his post-conviction petition. The Supreme Court remanded this matter for a limited hearing on five specific claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The scope of the trial court's proceedings was therefore limited to those matters. The petitioner sought to amend the petition in the trial court to include various issues related to other matters. Those claims were not among the claims specifically authorized for hearing. The trial court therefore did not err in declining to broaden the scope of the hearing or to allow a proffer on the proposed new claims. In light of the fact that counsel had been appointed three and a half months prior to the hearing after having already served a stint as counsel for Davis, that counsel for Davis agreed to the hearing date, and that counsel did not seek additional time to prepare for the hearing, there was no error in the court’s denial of the motion for continuance. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
