Wilson v. State, 2012 Miss. LEXIS 104

Background

Wilson was indicted for capital murder with underlying felonious child abuse and a separate felonious child abuse count; he pled guilty to both and was sentenced to death and 20 years respectively, with the sentencing hearing reportedly waived from jury.
On appeal, this Court affirmed the death sentence but remanded for post-conviction relief on several issues, concluding the factual basis for some claims was underdeveloped for direct appeal.
Wilson timely sought post-conviction relief through counsel; affidavits from Bristow, Johnstone, and others supported claims of ineffective assistance and inadequate investigation.
The post-conviction court granted relief in part and denied in part, ordering an evidentiary hearing on several ineffective-assistance grounds and related issues.
Key factual disputes center on (a) communications and relationship between Wilson and his trial attorneys, (b) adequacy of guilt/mitigation investigations, (c) propriety of the plea withdrawal and prosecutorial conduct, (d) validity of receiving a jury waiver for sentencing, and (e) whether cumulative errors warrant relief.
The majority ultimately grants partial relief by ordering evidentiary hearings on multiple claims of ineffective assistance and related waiver concerns, while denying relief on several other issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to communicate and investigate	Wilson (plaintiff) argues counsel failed to communicate and to investigate guilt/mitigation.	Wilson contends Bristow and Johnstone provided inadequate representation and failed to consult with him.	Merits: evidentiary hearing warranted.
Whether the court should have investigated appointed-counsel effectiveness after Wilson voiced dissatisfaction	Wilson asserts court failed to investigate counsel after his complaints.	State argues discretionary, not a Sixth Amendment violation; issue moot on remand.	Moot to extent remanded for evidentiary hearing on claims.
Whether prosecutorial vindictiveness invalidated the plea offer withdrawal	Wilson contends withdrawal of life-without-parole offer was punitive for exercising rights.	State argues withdrawal was permissible; not vindictive.	No prosecutorial vindictiveness; relief denied on this issue.
Whether Wilson knowingly, intelligently waived a jury for sentencing	Waiver was not knowing or voluntary; he was misinformed about outcomes.	Waiver valid if knowingly and intelligently made; judge explained consequences.	Issue meritorious; evidentiary hearing required to assess waiver validity.
Whether trial counsel’s failure to present mitigation and to obtain information prejudiced the penalty phase	Counsel failed to investigate/present mitigating evidence; could have affected sentencing.	Counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial; mitigation evidence was available.	Issue meritorious; evidentiary hearing required on mitigation/investigation.

Key Cases Cited

Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (clarifies counsel's duty to inform client of immigration consequences and broader advisory duties under Strickland)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel (performance and prejudice))
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (necessity of presenting mitigating evidence and reasonable investigation)
Porter v. McCollum, 130 S. Ct. 447 (2009) (mitigation evidence and the duty to investigate for sentencing)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (reaffirms Strickland framework and consideration of circumstances on review)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (defers to Strickland analysis with full consideration of record evidence)
Byrom v. State, 927 So.2d 709 (Miss. 2006) (Mississippi precedent on knowing waiver and sentencing procedure)
Loden v. State, 971 So.2d 548 (Miss. 2007) (death sentences after waived juries; relevant to waiver analysis)
Jordan v. State, 786 So.2d 987 (Miss. 2001) (proximity of considerations in post-conviction relief and trial record)
Ross v. State, 954 So.2d 968 (Miss. 2007) (standard for appellate review of capital cases)