162 So. 3d 889
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- On May 22, 2012, two masked armed men robbed a Dollar General in Duck Hill, MS; victims were held at gunpoint, phones were destroyed, a shot was fired, and about $800 was taken.
- Police pursuit located a Yukon registered to Goldman’s wife; occupants fled on foot after items (masks, victim’s purse) were thrown from the vehicle; fingerprints and gunshot residue tied the passenger, Harbin, to the vehicle.
- Harbin pleaded and testified for the State admitting he and Goldman committed the robbery; AT&T records placed Goldman’s cell phone near Duck Hill at the time of the robbery; Goldman invoked Miranda rights after turning himself in.
- A jury convicted Goldman of two counts of armed robbery, two counts of kidnapping, and possession of a firearm by a felon; he was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate effective 70-year term with no parole.
- Goldman moved for JNOV/new trial (denied), appealed via a Lindsey brief from counsel and a pro se supplemental brief raising ineffective assistance (failure to request impeachment instruction), insufficient proof of habitual-offender status, and double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Goldman’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request an impeachment instruction for witness Harbin | Counsel’s failure to request a specific impeachment instruction denied effective assistance and prejudiced the defense | Trial record already contained an impeachment instruction for Harbin; no record showing constitutionally deficient performance | Dismissed without prejudice on direct appeal; no affirmative record of constitutional ineffective assistance — claim may be raised in post-conviction proceedings |
| Whether the State failed to prove habitual-offender basis | State did not prove Goldman was the person convicted of the prior offenses beyond a reasonable doubt | Indictment properly alleged habitual status; State produced competent evidence and Goldman had an opportunity to challenge it | Rejected — habitual-offender enhancement was properly supported and challenged opportunity was afforded |
| Whether convictions violate Double Jeopardy | Multiple convictions/punishments impermissibly duplicate same offense | Each indicted count involved different victims and distinct offenses; no duplicate convictions of the same elements | Rejected — same-elements test not met; no double jeopardy violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 2005) (procedure when appellate counsel finds no arguable issues and defendant may file pro se brief)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requirement to advise suspects of rights prior to custodial interrogation)
- White v. State, 702 So. 2d 107 (Miss. 1997) (double jeopardy protection in successive prosecutions and same-elements test)
- Collins v. State, 70 So. 3d 1144 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (restating Strickland standard for ineffective-assistance claims)