Ferguson v. State, No. 56453

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtANDERSON; WALKER
Citation507 So.2d 94
Docket NumberNo. 56453
Decision Date06 May 1987
PartiesJames M. FERGUSON v. STATE of Mississippi.

Page 94

507 So.2d 94
James M. FERGUSON
v.
STATE of Mississippi.
No. 56453.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
May 6, 1987.

Leslie Scott, Bryan, Nelson, Allen, Schroeder & Compton, Biloxi, for appellant.

Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by Leyser Q. Morris, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and DAN M. LEE and ANDERSON, JJ.

ANDERSON, Justice, for the Court:

This appeal from the Circuit Court of Harrison County calls upon us to discuss the duty of a lawyer towards his client.

A Biloxi police officer found the appellant James Ferguson crouching in an alley next to a warehouse door. As the officer approached, Ferguson dropped some objects into the grass near the building. These turned out to be a screwdriver and a tire tool. Upon seeing this, and noticing that the tin covering on the door had been pried back, the officer arrested Ferguson for attempted burglary.

Ferguson having had several major encounters with the law before, the grand jury indicted him not only for this crime, but as an habitual offender under the provisions of Mississippi Code Annotated, Section 99-19-83 (Supp.1986). He waived his right to a jury, and was tried by the circuit judge in a bench proceeding. The judge found him guilty of the attempt at burglary, and also found him an habitual offender under the terms of the statute. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Ferguson's appeal is now before us. We reverse.

While numerous errors are assigned regarding both phases of the trial, we shall discuss only those relating to the troubled relationship between Ferguson and his court-appointed lawyer, as these seem decisive to us.

In ruling on a motion for new trial, the circuit judge remarked, not without some understatement, that "[b]y the time the trial ended, [defense counsel] and Mr. Ferguson were not exactly in love with each other, to put it lightly." Their disagreements came to a head after the state had rested and one defense witness had testified. At that juncture, Ferguson addressed the court and said, "me and my lawyer spoke in the back and he agreed to dismiss himself off the case for representing

Page 95

me. It seems like we can't come to any agreement about witnesses...." Ferguson explained that he wanted to call several witnesses, especially one Washington Favre, who had been arrested after being seen fleeing from the scene of the burglary.

At various times during the trial Ferguson renewed his request to replace trial counsel. Sometimes these requests took the form of a motion for appointment of new counsel, sometimes a motion for continuance so he could seek new counsel and at other times, a motion for mistrial for lack of effective assistance of counsel. Ferguson told the court repeatedly that he was not qualified to conduct his own defense. The trial judge denied all of these motions. Trial counsel took pains to inform the court that the disaffection was mutual. On one occasion after Ferguson had made one of his motions, the court asked him whether the state had denied him any information necessary to the defense. Trial counsel replied: "Not a thing, I have been lied to by my client and I do not feel I can even sit here with him, and I regret it, but it is a fact, and I think the court ought to know it."

Later Ferguson said trial counsel had led him to believe that he, trial counsel, had been in touch with Miller, the attorney who had represented Ferguson at the preliminary hearing. Ferguson believed Miller's notes could be used to impeach the testimony of the officers. When trial counsel heard this he immediately said, "Your Honor, he is lying, and I am getting tired of it."

Except for Favre, the witnesses desired by Ferguson were found by court officials. Trial counsel questioned only one of them; the others were questioned by Ferguson himself, with some assistance from the court. Not surprisingly, Ferguson was unable to elicit a coherent body of testimony from them. Trial counsel gave no clear explanation concerning his position on these witnesses. On the one hand, he indicated a belief that they would not help his client's case and might even harm it. On the other hand, at one point he admitted that he "forgot" about these witnesses and was not "on top of this matter." Moreover, it appears from the record that trial counsel never even interviewed Washington Favre. When questioned about this absence, trial counsel said: "I don't like to have witnesses that I don't know what they're going to testify about."

Finally, trial counsel declined to make a closing argument, saying instead that he would "defer" to the defendant. Trial counsel was excused from the case after moving for a new trial. The circuit judge then appointed Ferguson's present counsel.

On appeal, Ferguson argued that his attorney's behavior denied him effective assistance of counsel.

That the Sixth Amendment's guaranty of a fair trial includes the right to effective assistance of counsel has been established by a long line of cases stemming from Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). But it is also true that under the prevailing constitutional doctrine, a defendant contesting his conviction on that ground must bear a heavy burden. Claims of ineffective assistance are governed by guidelines of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 675 (1984). "First," said the Supreme Court, "the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient.... Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." Although it need not be outcome determinative in the strict sense, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d at 697-98, it must be grave enough to "undermine confidence" in the reliability of the whole proceeding. 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 practice notes
  • Ross v. State, 1998-DP-01038-SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 26, 2007
    ...to interview potential witnesses and to make independent investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case." Ferguson v. State, 507 So.2d 94, 96 (Miss.1987). Under this standard, counsel may be deemed ineffective for relying almost exclusively on material furnished by the State durin......
  • Ronk v. State, 2015-DR-01373-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 17, 2019
    ...and to make independent investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case." Ross , 954 So.2d at 1005 (quoting Ferguson v. State , 507 So.2d 94, 96 (Miss. 1987) ); Doss , 19 So.3d at 698 (quoting Doss v. State , 882 So.2d 176, 189 (Miss. 2004) ("Counsel's minimum duty is to interview ......
  • Willie v. State , 2009–DR–01565–SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 1, 2012
    ...to interview potential witnesses and to make independent investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case.” Ferguson v. State, 507 So.2d 94, 96 (Miss.1987). Under this standard, counsel may be deemed ineffective for relying almost exclusively on material furnished by the State durin......
  • Bell v. State, 1999-DR-01287-SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 20, 2004
    ...investigation of facts and circumstances. Payton v. State, 708 So.2d 559, 561 ¶ 8 (Miss.1998) (citing Ferguson v. 879 So.2d 434 State, 507 So.2d 94, 96 (Miss.1987) (quoting Nealy v. Cabana, 764 F.2d 1173, 1177 (5th Cir.1985))). In addition, counsel must make reasonable investigations or mak......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
43 cases
  • Ross v. State, 1998-DP-01038-SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 26, 2007
    ...to interview potential witnesses and to make independent investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case." Ferguson v. State, 507 So.2d 94, 96 (Miss.1987). Under this standard, counsel may be deemed ineffective for relying almost exclusively on material furnished by the State durin......
  • Ronk v. State, 2015-DR-01373-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 17, 2019
    ...and to make independent investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case." Ross , 954 So.2d at 1005 (quoting Ferguson v. State , 507 So.2d 94, 96 (Miss. 1987) ); Doss , 19 So.3d at 698 (quoting Doss v. State , 882 So.2d 176, 189 (Miss. 2004) ("Counsel's minimum duty is to interview ......
  • Willie v. State , 2009–DR–01565–SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 1, 2012
    ...to interview potential witnesses and to make independent investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case.” Ferguson v. State, 507 So.2d 94, 96 (Miss.1987). Under this standard, counsel may be deemed ineffective for relying almost exclusively on material furnished by the State durin......
  • Bell v. State, 1999-DR-01287-SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 20, 2004
    ...investigation of facts and circumstances. Payton v. State, 708 So.2d 559, 561 ¶ 8 (Miss.1998) (citing Ferguson v. 879 So.2d 434 State, 507 So.2d 94, 96 (Miss.1987) (quoting Nealy v. Cabana, 764 F.2d 1173, 1177 (5th Cir.1985))). In addition, counsel must make reasonable investigations or mak......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT