Jeffery Kleckner v. State of Mississippi, 230 So. 3d 1042

Jeffrey Kleckner was convicted in 2009 of one count of touching a child for lustful purposes and three counts of sexual battery; sentences included 15 years and life terms.
Direct appeal affirmed; Mississippi Supreme Court denied certiorari.
In 2014 the supreme court granted Kleckner leave to file a post-conviction relief (PCR) motion limited to alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel for admitting certain State and defense exhibits.
Kleckner filed his PCR motion timely, but the clerk delayed filing; the circuit court denied the PCR in November 2015 and Kleckner did not receive notice until March 2016; appellate timeliness was excused.
The PCR claim alleged trial counsel was ineffective for allowing admission of two State exhibits and for submitting four defense exhibits.
The circuit court dismissed the PCR; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Kleckner failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for allowing State exhibits S-10 and S-11 into evidence	Counsel erred in permitting admission of S-10/S-11, constituting deficient performance that prejudiced the defense	Admission was within trial strategy; Kleckner failed to show prejudice or deficient performance	Court held Kleckner failed both Strickland prongs; claim lacks merit
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for submitting defense exhibits D-5–D-8	Submission of D-5–D-8 was improper and prejudicial	Submission fell within strategic choices; no showing of reasonable probability of different outcome	Court held strategic choice standard applies; no prejudice shown; claim fails
Whether the appellate record included the contested exhibits	Kleckner argued requested exhibits were withheld from the PCR record	Court noted original direct-appeal record contained a handwritten exhibit list, typed version, and copies; court took judicial notice of that file	Court found the record contained descriptions/copies of the exhibits cited
Whether summary dismissal of the PCR motion was appropriate	Kleckner contended his claim required evidentiary development	State argued dismissal proper because claim plainly without merit on face of motion and record	Court affirmed summary dismissal under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2); PCR plainly did not entitle movant to relief

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Gilley v. State, 748 So. 2d 123 (1999) (presumption counsel’s performance is effective; defendant must show reasonable probability of different outcome)
Fluker v. State, 170 So. 3d 471 (2015) (PCR may be summarily dismissed if movant plainly not entitled to relief)
Quinn v. State, 191 So. 3d 1227 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (court reiterates deference to counsel’s strategic choices)
Stringer v. State, 454 So. 2d 468 (1984) (strategic decisions by counsel entitled to deference)
Havard v. State, 928 So. 2d 771 (2006) (if either Strickland prong is not met, claim fails)
Shinn v. State, 174 So. 3d 961 (2015) (choices about motions, witnesses, objections are trial strategy)
Carr v. State, 873 So. 2d 991 (2004) (same: strategic choices do not establish ineffective assistance)