Holland v. State
| Docket Number: | 1999-DR-00273-SCT Linked Case(s): 1999-DR-00273-SCT ; 1999-DR-00273-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-22-2004 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: LEAVE TO SEEK POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, DENIED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty post conviction - Form of verdict - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Jury pool - Search warrant - Prejudicial comments - Residual doubt - Testimony of pathologist - Aggravating factors - Inability to defend proof - Voir dire - Limiting instruction - Disproportionate sentence - Sufficiency of evidence - Neurological exam Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DEATH PENALTY - POST CONVICTION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-02-1993 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Kosta N. Vlahos Disposition: Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: 22497 |
|
| Note: | Petitioner's Pro Se Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is denied. Motion for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court with a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief filed by petitioner is denied. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Gerald James Holland |
OFFICE OF CAPITAL POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL BY: ROBERT RYAN
LOULYNN VANZETTA WILLIAMS |
||
| 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 - Form of verdict - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Jury pool - Search warrant - Prejudicial comments - Residual doubt - Testimony of pathologist - Aggravating factors - Inability to defend proof - Voir dire - Limiting instruction - Disproportionate sentence - Sufficiency of evidence - Neurological exam |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gerald Holland was convicted of capital murder and the underlying crime of rape. His conviction was affirmed on appeal, but the death sentence was vacated after it was found that the jury prematurely endorsed the death sentence before considering the mitigating and aggravating evidence and before the jury instructions were given by the trial court. Holland was granted a new sentencing hearing and again received the death penalty. Holland again appealed, and his death sentence was affirmed. Holland now applies for post-conviction relief. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Form of verdict Holland argues that the jury failed to follow the court's instruction in that the written form of the verdict did not recite that the aggravating circumstances were found to exist beyond a reasonable doubt. This claim was previously raised on direct appeal and was found to be without merit. Holland did not object to the form of the verdict at trial and therefore did not preserve the issue for appeal. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Holland argues that trial counsel was ineffective in his preparation for and his handling of the testimony of the State's pathologist during the guilt phase of the trial. When a defendant challenges a death sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the purported errors of counsel, the jury would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant imposition of the death penalty. In this case, trial counsel's conduct of the sentencing trial did not fall below the standard expected of lawyer and even, assuming some error on the part of counsel, the absence of any assumed error would not have resulted in sentence other than death. Issue 3: Jury pool Holland argues that he was denied a fair and impartial trial because counsel failed to have the court ascertain whether the jury pool was tainted by the statements of a particular venireman that the juror was familiar with the case and was in complete agreement with the conviction. Holland raised the issue on direct appeal, and it was found to be without merit. Issue 4: Search warrant Holland argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failure to contest the vague phraseology of the search warrant that authorized a search for the "instrumentalities used in the commission of a crime." Trial counsel did attempt to suppress the confessions before trial and raised the challenge again on appeal. However, the Supreme Court found Holland’s confessions to be voluntary. Issue 5: Prejudicial comments Holland claims that counsel was ineffective at the resentencing trial for failure to object to four statements made by the prosecutor which Holland claims were prejudicial. The record shows that counsel did pose objections to these comments and further raised them again on direct appeal. The propriety of the comments has been thoroughly litigated, and the issue is now barred from collateral review. Issue 6: Residual doubt Holland argues that, at his resentencing trial, he was not allowed to argue residual doubt concerning his guilt. This issue was considered thoroughly on direct appeal, and the Supreme Court held that there can be no error in denying Holland the right to argue residual or whimsical doubt, since it is not a mitigating factor that is constitutionally recognized. Issue 7: Testimony of pathologist Holland argues that, during the resentencing trial, the testimony of the State's pathologist was overbroad and that his opinions were not always based scientific standards and supporting proof. This issue was considered and rejected on direct appeal, because the State showed that the testimony fell within the bounds of forensic pathology by demonstrating that the doctor’s expertise dealt with wounds, suffering, and the means of infliction of injury. Issue 8: Aggravating factors Holland argues that his death sentence must be vacated because the aggravating circumstances which charged capital murder were not included in the indictment. A defendant is not entitled to formal notice of the aggravating circumstances to be employed by the prosecution and an indictment for capital murder puts a defendant on sufficient notice that the statutory aggravating factors will be used against him. Issue 9: Inability to defend proof Holland argues that it was improper to compel the State to prove that he had already committed murder and rape but not allow him to defend the State's assertions. This is a variation of the previously discussed "residual doubt" argument which was rejected on direct appeal. Issue 10: Voir dire Holland argues that, prior to the resentencing trial, he was precluded by the judge from questioning prospective jurors about their willingness to consider mitigation evidence. This claim has previously been considered and rejected on direct appeal. Issue 11: Limiting instruction Holland argues that the court's limiting instruction as to the especially heinous, atrocious or cruel aggravating factor was constitutionally infirm because the instruction to the jury was vague and overbroad. This issue was decided against Holland on direct appeal and is now procedurally barred. Issue 12: Disproportionate sentence On direct appeal, the Supreme Court specifically found that Holland's death sentence was not disproportionate. Therefore, the issue is now procedurally barred from collateral review. Issue 13: Sufficiency of evidence Holland argues that the testimony of the pathologist alone was insufficient for a jury to find that the victim had been raped. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to convince a rational factfinder of Holland's guilt of capital murder and the underlying crime of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Issue 14: Neurological exam Holland argues that the judge should have granted his request for a neurological exam. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court found that Holland had not shown a substantial need for the exam and that it was within the discretion of the judge to deny the request. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
