Dalvin Latham v. State of Mississippi, 299 So.3d 768

On May 19, 2016, 74-year-old Freddie Jean Williams was robbed at her Cleveland, Mississippi home by three men; one assailant (later identified as Dalvin Latham) grabbed her work bag.
Williams testified the robbers’ faces were uncovered, she saw dreadlocks on one man, and she immediately recognized him from prior sightings at her sister’s house.
Williams’s niece pulled up Latham’s Facebook photo and Williams confirmed the match; less than 24 hours after the robbery Williams selected Latham from a six-person photo lineup in which he was the only person with dreadlocks.
Latham was indicted for robbery (with a sentencing enhancement alleged but not imposed); at trial Latham asserted an alibi and called one witness; defense counsel did not object to admission of the photo lineup and affirmatively refused the court’s proffered eyewitness-identification jury instruction (C‑8).
A jury convicted Latham of robbery; he was sentenced to five years and appealed, arguing trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for (1) failing to object to an overly suggestive lineup and (2) refusing instruction C‑8.
The Mississippi Supreme Court applied Strickland, concluded Williams’s identification was reliable under the totality of the circumstances, found counsel’s refusal of C‑8 was strategic, and affirmed the conviction, dismissing the ineffective‑assistance claim with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Latham)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Was counsel ineffective for failing to object to an impermissibly suggestive photo lineup?	Lineup impermissibly suggestive because Latham was the only person with dreadlocks; counsel should have objected.	Any objection would have failed because the out‑of‑court ID was reliable under the Biggers factors; thus counsel not deficient or prejudicial.	Counsel not ineffective: even if lineup was suggestive, identification was reliable (opportunity, attention, consistent description, certainty, promptness), so objection would be futile.
Was counsel ineffective for refusing the court’s eyewitness‑identification jury instruction (C‑8)?	Refusal deprived jury of guidance on assessing reliability of Williams’s out‑of‑court ID.	Refusal was a tactical decision consistent with an alibi strategy and would not have changed outcome given reliable ID and in‑court identification.	Counsel not ineffective: refusal was strategic and not prejudicial; instruction would not have altered verdict.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (sets multi‑factor test for reliability of pretrial identifications)
Butler v. State, 102 So. 3d 260 (Mississippi discussion on suggestiveness vs. reliability of photo lineups)
Bankston v. State, 391 So. 2d 1005 (lineup impermissible where defendant is only person with a distinctive feature recalled by victim)
Stewart v. State, 131 So. 3d 569 (Mississippi reiteration that suggestive identifications may be admissible if reliable under totality of circumstances)