Before Bridges, C.j., Coleman, And Irving, JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irving, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/04/1996
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LEE J. HOWARD
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: 12/04/1996: GRAND LARCENY (HABITUAL OFFENDER): SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF 5 YRS IN THE MDOC & PAY A FINE OF $1,000; SENTENCE SHALL NOT BE REDUCED NOR SUSPENDED NOR SHALL SAID DEFENDANT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION; 12/04/1996: GRAND LARCENY (HABITUAL OFFENDER): SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF 5 YRS IN THE MDOC & PAY A FINE OF $1,000; SENTENCE SHALL NOT BE REDUCED NOR SUSPENDED NOR SHALL SAID DEFENDANT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION;
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/06/99
¶1. Ola Lee Hall was convicted in Lowndes County Circuit Court as a habitual offender for grand larceny. Hall was sentenced to serve a term of five years incarceration without the possibility of parole or early release. Additionally, Hall was ordered to pay a fine of one-thousand dollars. Hall now appeals the trial court's final judgment of guilt and asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The statement of the issue is recited verbatim from his brief:
Whether the Defendant was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
¶2. The following facts are according to the State's proof. On July 8, 1995, Hall was stopped during a routine roadblock while driving a 1984 Buick Regal that had been previously reported stolen. The police officer became suspicious when Hall was unable to produce a valid driver's license. He checked Hall's name and date of birth against the records. Finding nothing in the records, the officer checked the tags. From that information, he discovered that the Buick was stolen. The officer immediately gave Hall the Miranda warning, arrested him, and took him to the police station for further investigation. Hall was sitting at the desk while the police officer spoke with the police in the county where the Buick had been stolen. Hall began speaking about the Buick. The officer interrupted Hall and reminded him of the Miranda warning. Hall continued to talk and told the officer that he had won the Buick in a poker game.
¶3. The testimony at trial confirmed that Patricia Baldwin was the owner of the Buick. Baldwin testified that she left the Buick with Jack Anthony in order for him to repair it. Anthony testified that before he could repair the Buick, it was stolen. Anthony further testified that he had parked the Buick at his cousin's house and left the keys inside. There was further testimony that prior to the theft, Anthony had an argument with Hall. At the time of the argument Hall was said to be at least three car lengths away from the Buick. Anthony testified that after the argument he went into his cousin's house and fell asleep. When he awoke, he found the Buick had been stolen. Baldwin and Anthony both testified that the theft was reported the next day. Anthony testified that prior to the date of the theft, Hall asked Baldwin's fiancé about purchasing the Buick. At trial, Hall offered no evidence, choosing to make only a closing argument. Subsequently, he was convicted of grand larceny.
¶4. The State contends that Hall's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is waived because the issue was not raised at trial. We reject the State's contention. The procedural bar rule does not apply to claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel. Read v. State, 430 So. 2d 832, 837 (Miss. 1983). Hall's claim, therefore, is not procedurally ...