Manning v. State
| Docket Number: | 2000-DR-01078-SCT Linked Case(s): 2000-DR-01078-SCT ; 2000-DR-01078-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-06-2004 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Application for Leave to Seek Post-Conviction Relief, Granted in Part and Denied in Part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Perjured testimony - Disclosure of exculpatory evidence - Witness identification - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Cumulative errors - Sympathy - Mitigation evidence - Aggravating factor Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Cobb, P.J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DEATH PENALTY- POSTCONVICTION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-30-1996 Appealed from: Oktibbeha County Circuit Court Judge: John M. Montgomery Disposition: Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Case Number: 13086 |
|
| Note: | Motion to Accept for Filing Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court with a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, granted. Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court with a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, granted in part. Petition for Review of Lower Court's Order Denying Motions for Expert Assistance, Discovery and Inspection of Evidence filed by counsel for Willie Jerome Manning is granted in part. Upon remand of Manning v. State, No. 2000-DR-01078-SCT for an evidentiary hearing, the trial court shall address Manning's requests for leave to invoke discovery and the motion for examination of fingerprint evidence. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Willie Jerome Manning a/k/a Fly |
OFFICE OF CAPITAL POST CONVICTION COUNSEL
BY: DAVID VOISIN
ROBERT 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 - Perjured testimony - Disclosure of exculpatory evidence - Witness identification - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Cumulative errors - Sympathy - Mitigation evidence - Aggravating factor |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Manning was convicted of two counts of capital murder occurring during the commission of a robbery and was sentenced to death in each case. His convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Supreme Court on all grounds except a Batson issue. After remand, the Supreme Court affirmed on the Batson issue. Manning's appointed counsel has now filed an application for leave to proceed in the trial court with post-conviction pleadings. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Perjured testimony Manning argues that the testimony of one witness was false and that the State knowingly presented false evidence. The witness stated that from the apartment he shared with his girlfriend, which is across the street from the apartment then occupied by the victims, he saw Manning force his way into the victims' apartment. However, the witness did not live in the apartment across the street from the victims at the time they were murdered. The State argues that this issue is procedurally barred from collateral review by the doctrine of waiver because such claims could have been raised on direct appeal and Manning fails to demonstrate cause or actual prejudice for not raising the claim. Included in Manning’s petition for post conviction relief is the affidavit Manning's trial counsel who attests that he never saw, nor knew of the existence of materials that were in the possession of the Starkville Police Department which included handwritten notes by police officers who conducted a door-to-door canvas of the Brooksville Garden apartments that indicated that the apartment in which the witness claimed to live was vacant at the time of the murders. Since Manning was unaware of this, his claims are not procedurally barred and his petition to seek post-conviction relief as to this issue is granted. In addition, the witness claims that he was coerced into testifying against Manning with the threat that he might be charged with the murders. When an important witness to a crime recanted his testimony and offered a reason for having given false testimony at trial, the petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the witness lied at trial or on his affidavit. Issue 2: Disclosure of exculpatory evidence Manning argues that according to a crime scene specialist who investigated the crime, a shoe print in blood was found on a rug in the victims' apartment but the fact that it was a size 8 was never disclosed to Manning's defense counsel. He argues that this evidence was critical since Manning wears a size 10 or larger shoe and thus could not have left the bloody print in the victims' apartment. With regard to disclosing exculpatory material, the defendant must prove that the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; that the defendant does not possess the evidence nor could he obtain it himself with any reasonable diligence; that the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence; and that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Manning demonstrates by including a copy, the shoe-print report, indicating the likely size of the shoe existed and was known to the prosecution. Evidence that a shoe-print not matching Manning's shoe size was found at the scene of the crime presents a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Therefore, Manning should be allowed to proceed on this issue in the trial court. Manning also argues that law enforcement had information implicating another suspect, which they failed to disclose to defense counsel. Manning is granted permission to proceed with post-conviction pleadings on the issues of whether the State presented false testimony, failed to provide mandated exculpatory evidence and whether Manning's trial counsel and direct appeal counsel were ineffective for failing to properly investigate and adequately defend. Issue 3: Witness identification Another witness testified that he saw Manning at Manning's stepfather's apartment, Building 13, in Brooksville Gardens on the day of the murders. However, Manning's stepfather did not live in Building 13 on that date. Manning argues that the witness was called to testify even though the State knew that he was mistaken or making false statements. A new trial is required if the false testimony could have in any reasonable likelihood affected the judgment of the jury. Manning makes only assertions which are not sufficient to support post-conviction relief. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Manning argues that he is due post-conviction relief due to counsel’s ineffectiveness with regard to discovering the false or suppressed evidence. The failure to discredit the State's key witnesses, failure to make a reasonable investigation and failure to make use of evidence have all been found to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. A defendant must demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense of the case. Manning has set forth sufficient evidence to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. While some of the errors that Manning alleges are based on information that was not discoverable (or easily) discoverable at the time, his petition presents sufficient material to question the performance of Manning's trial counsel and his appellate counsel. The trial court should also consider the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Manning’s brother as a witness to rebut the claim of a witness who testified to have participated in conversations, with Manning’s brother present, in which Manning implicated himself in the deaths of the victims. Issue 5: Cumulative errors Manning argues that while each of the errors above warrant reversal, when all of the errors are taken together, the combined prejudicial effect requires reversal. Manning has demonstrated sufficient evidence of cumulative errors to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Issue 6: Sympathy Manning argues that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the trial court and prosecutor repeatedly stressed that sympathy was to play no part in its deliberations. Although the jury cannot be instructed to disregard sympathy altogether, they may be cautioned against being swayed by such considerations. In addition, Manning is barred from raising this issue since he failed to object at trial and fails now to demonstrate that he was prejudiced. Issue 7: Mitigation evidence Manning argues that trial counsel had a duty to unearth all relevant mitigating evidence and to conduct a thorough investigation into the range of possible mitigating evidence. The record shows that trial counsel failed to interview witnesses who had knowledge of Manning's family and were willing to cooperate with defense counsel. This claim is barred as it was raised on direct appeal and rejected since Manning failed to show prejudice related to the trial counsel's failure to call other witnesses. Issue 8: Aggravating factor Manning argues that his conviction in prior murders was unconstitutionally obtained and therefore, the prosecution relied on an invalid statutory aggravating circumstance. Manning's claim has already been decided and rejected on direct appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
