Bishop v. State, 2002-DR-00932-SCT.
Decision Date | 01 July 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 2002-DR-00932-SCT.,2002-DR-00932-SCT. |
Citation | 882 So.2d 135 |
Parties | Dale Leo BISHOP v. STATE of Mississippi. |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel by Robert M. Ryan, Louwlynn Vanzetta Williams, attorneys for appellant.
Office of the Attorney General by Judy T. Martin, Marvin L. White, Jr., attorneys for appellee.
EN BANC.
¶ 1. Dale Leo Bishop was convicted of the crime of capital murder, with the underlying felony of kidnaping, and sentenced to death. Bishop's conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court in Bishop v. State, 812 So.2d 934 (Miss.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 976, 123 S.Ct. 468, 154 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). This Court's mandate issued on April 18, 2002. Bishop, represented by the Mississippi Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel (MOCPCC), has now filed his Motion for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court with a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. The State has filed its response in opposition to the motion.
¶ 2. The following statement of facts is taken from this Court's opinion in Bishop v. State, 812 So.2d 934 (Miss.2002):
¶ 3. This Court's mandate in Bishop's direct appeal issued on April 18, 2002. The statute of limitations for filing Bishop's application for post-conviction relief expired on April 18, 2003, the date the present post-conviction relief petition was filed. See Puckett v. State, 834 So.2d 676, 677-78 (Miss.2002). Included with his motion to proceed in the trial court, Bishop also filed a motion to supplement and/or amend the present petition. The State strongly objected. By order entered on May 16, 2003, this Court denied Bishop's motion to supplement or amend the petition. This Court noted that "Bishop ... offered nothing to support his motion to supplement or amend the application." The order stated, "that absent any compelling reasons or circumstances, the Court intends to follow the prescribed time lines."
¶ 4. In his petition, Bishop asserts the following grounds for relief:
¶ 5. The State has filed its response in opposition to the petition and Bishop has filed a reply to the State's response. The State has also filed a Motion to Strike Exhibits and Appendices to and Portions of Petitioner's Reply Brief, which will be addressed below.
I. Whether Bishop was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at the guilt and sentencing phases of the trial within the meaning of Strickland v. Washington, and corresponding portions of the Mississippi Constitution.1
¶ 6. This Court has stated the following regarding ineffective assistance of counsel:
The standard for determining if a defendant received effective assistance of counsel is well settled. "The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness [of counsel] must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). A defendant must demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense of the case. Id. at 687, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. "Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable." Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468, 477 (Miss.1984) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052). The focus of the inquiry must be whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances. Id.
Burns v. State, 813 So.2d 668, 673 (Miss.2001) (emphasis in original)....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jordan v. State
...under the guise of poor representation by counsel. Foster v. State, 687 So.2d 1124, 1129 (Miss.1996). See also Bishop v. State, 882 So.2d 135, 149 (Miss.2004); Grayson v. State, 879 So.2d 1008, 1020 (Miss.2004); Wiley v. State, 750 So.2d 1193, 1208 ¶ 10. Prior to trial, the defense obtained......
-
Howard v. State
...The focus of the inquiry must be whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances. Id. Bishop v. State, 882 So.2d 135, 141 (Miss. 2004) (quoting Burns v. State, 813 So.2d 668, 673 (Miss.2001)) (emphasis in original). Howard argues that his trial counsels' perfor......
-
Davis v. State
...and whether the principle should be applied in a postconviction proceeding arising froma capital case like this one. In Bishop v. State, 882 So. 2d 135, 156 (Miss. 2004) the Mississippi Supreme Court stated: "Notions of notice pleading have no place in post-conviction applications, the very......
-
Davis v. State
...and whether the principle should be applied in a postconviction proceeding arising from a capital case like this one. In Bishop v. State, 882 So.2d 135, 156 (Miss.2004), the Mississippi Supreme Court stated:"Notions of notice pleading have no place in post-conviction applications, the very ......