Smith v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 1999-DR-01394-SCT
Linked Case(s): 1999-DR-01394-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-20-2004
Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J.
Holding: Application for Leave to Seek Post-Conviction Relief is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. Leflore County taxed with costs of appeal.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Shackles - Juror misconduct - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Proportionality of sentence - Mitigating instruction - Mental retardation
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves and Dickinson, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Randolph, J.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DEATH PENALTY - POST CONVICTION

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-01-1993
Appealed from: Leflore County Circuit Court
Judge: Gray Evans
Disposition: Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
District Attorney: Frank Carlton
Case Number: 22161

Note: Petitioner's Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File His Reply Brief in Support of Petitioner's Post-Conviction Petition is dismissed as moot. Petitioner/Pro Se's Petition for Post Conviction Relief filed August 23, 1999, is granted. Counsel's Application for Leave to File Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and Motion for Leave to Amend and Supplement Post-Conviction Petition, both filed on July 13, 2001 are granted. Pro Se Application for Leave to File Motion to Vacate Judgment and Death Sentence filed August 27, 2001, as amended on September 4, 2001, is dismissed. Counsel's Motion for Leave to File Amended Claim XVIII filed June 19, 2003, is granted. Counsel's Motion to Stay Proceedings for 90 Days to Allow Opportunity for Petitioner's Expert to Conduct Appropriate Testing filed January 15, 2004 is dismissed without prejudice to be refiled in light of this Court's decision entered this day in this case and in Chase v. State, No. 2003-DR-01335. Petitioner's Ex Parte Motion, Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. Sec. 99-15-18, for Review and Authorization of Court-Ordered Payment of Attorney Fees and Out-of-Pocket Expenses, and Review and Authorization is denied without prejudice to be refiled in accord with this order.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Clyde Wendell Smith




PRO SE ALAN M. FREEDMAN C. JACKSON WILLIAMS OFFICE OF CAPITAL POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL BY: ROBERT M. RYAN WILLIAM J. CLAYTON LOUWLYNN VANZETTA WILLIAMS



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: MARVIN L. WHITE, JR. JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS  

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 - Shackles - Juror misconduct - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Proportionality of sentence - Mitigating instruction - Mental retardation

Summary of the Facts: Clyde Smith was convicted of the capital murder. His conviction and sentence to death by lethal injection were affirmed on direct appeal. He has filed an application for post-conviction relief.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Shackles Smith claims that his legs and arms were improperly shackled during the trial and that jurors could have been and were influenced by his appearance in handcuffs and leg shackles. Because the claim could have been raised at the trial and again on direct appeal, it is procedurally barred. Smith also claims that his attorneys at trial and on appeal were ineffective in failing to raise the issue. However, Smith has presented no evidence that his defense suffered any negative consequence from the fact that he was restrained during the trial. Issue 2: Juror misconduct Smith argues that the jury may have been influenced by evidence of another crime which was not properly before the jury. Generally, a juror is not allowed to impeach his own verdict by testifying about motives or influences that affected the deliberations, although jurors may testify about misconduct in their presence or about outside influences on the jury panel. Here, there is no allegation that the jurors came to their decision based on a rape allegation against Smith’s brother. Smith also argues that the jury improperly considered the possibility of parole. However, the jurors were not prohibited from discussing among themselves whether parole was a possibility, since they were instructed correctly. In fact, the defense chose to inform the jury about Smith's life sentences without parole. Smith also argues that the jury lumped the two defendants together and decided jointly that both were guilty and that both should be sentenced to die. Not only is this issue barred since it was raised on direct appeal, but the jury was properly instructed that it had to consider each defendant's guilt separately. Smith claims that the jurors improperly sought religious guidance during their deliberations. However, he fails to show how the jury could have been improperly influenced. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Smith argues that his attorneys were ineffective in failing to preserve for the record all of the jury selection process and in failing to challenge the State's use of its peremptory strikes. Not only is jury selection generally a matter of trial strategy, but Smith has failed to show any prejudice. Smith argues that his attorneys were ineffective in failing to present additional mitigation witnesses at the sentencing phase. Because some of the information was not helpful to the defense, it is possible that the decision not to call any witnesses was defensible trial strategy. In addition, much of this evidence (the abusive father, the father's alcoholism, etc.) was already before the jury. Smith argues that the trial judge erred in excluding two jurors from the venire and that his attorneys were ineffective in not objecting to their exclusion. Because the judge did not err in excusing a juror who admitted that she could barely read and write, it follows that the attorneys were not ineffective in failing to object to her dismissal. Smith argues that his attorneys were ineffective in failing to cross-examine a witness about her testimony. However, this appears to be a matter of trial strategy. Smith also argues that his attorneys were ineffective in failing to object to the sheriff’s presence in the courtroom when he was scheduled to testify later in the proceedings. However, he has failed to show any prejudice. Smith argues that his attorneys were ineffective in allowing the trial to go forward without a severance from his co-defendant. This issue is barred since it was substantially addressed on direct appeal. In addition, Smith chose to go to trial with his brother even after being informed that his case might be prejudiced. Smith argues that his attorneys were ineffective in failing to see that the bench conferences were recorded. Although the bench conferences should have been recorded, there is no showing of prejudice to Smith. Smith argues that his attorneys should have objected to the instruction on aggravating and mitigating circumstances. As the direct claim that the instruction was improper was found to be without merit, there can be no claim that the attorneys were ineffective in failing to object. Smith argues that his attorneys were ineffective in failing to object to the prosecutor’s comparison of Smith’s case to that of Ted Bundy. This issue was raised in the direct appeal and found to be without merit. Smith claims that the prosecutor improperly argued during the penalty phase that the death sentence was important to the victim's relatives and that the attorneys were ineffective in failing to object to the argument. This claim was rejected on direct appeal. Smith argues that his attorneys were ineffective in not insuring that the jury form was proper and in not objecting to the use of "defendants." However, the record shows that the jury did in fact deliberate each defendant's sentence separately. Smith argues that his attorneys were ineffective for not requesting an amendment to the sentencing instructions. This issue has been presented and decided and cannot be relitigated under a claim of ineffective counsel. Issue 4: Proportionality of sentence Smith makes a proportionality argument that his death penalty should be overturned in light of his co-defendant’s life sentence. On direct appeal, the Court determined that the sentence was not disproportionate even though it appeared that Smith’s brother was the actual triggerman. Nothing has changed that. Issue 5: Mitigating instruction Smith argues that one of the instructions given by the court was improper in that it improperly created a presumption in favor of death, in that a death sentence would result if the jurors found the aggravating and mitigating factors to be equal. This instruction has been found not be improper in other cases and does not create a presumption in favor of the death penalty. Issue 6: Mental retardation Smith asks that his death sentence be vacated, or in the alternative, remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of mental retardation. Notwithstanding the dearth of evidence regarding Smith’s claim of mental retardation, under Atkins v. Virginia, and Chase v. State, No. 2003-DR-01355-SCT (Miss. 2004), the case is remanded to give Smith an opportunity to present the issue of his possible mental retardation to the trial court.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court