IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2018-KA-00981-SCT
DEIONTA IVORY a/k/a DEIONTA JONTEL IVORY
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/15/2018 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. PAUL S. FUNDERBURK TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: CHRISTOPHER EDWIN BAUER LUANNE STARK THOMPSON TIMOTHY BAXTER TUCKER NEBRA EVANS PORTER KYLE DAVID ROBBINS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: GEORGE T. HOLMES ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ALICIA AINSWORTH DISTRICT ATTORNEY: JOHN WEDDLE NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/19/2019 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE KITCHENS, P.J., MAXWELL AND CHAMBERLIN, JJ.
KITCHENS, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Deionta Ivory was convicted by the Monroe County Circuit Court on counts of armed
robbery and kidnaping. Ivory’s trial attorney moved ore tenus for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict (JNOV), but he did not make a post-trial motion for a new trial.
¶2. On appeal, Ivory argues that the verdicts were contrary to the overwhelming weight
of the evidence, and he requests a new trial. He contends that his ore tenus motion for JNOV should be construed as a motion for a new trial because the motion challenged the weight of
the evidence. In the alternative, Ivory argues that, if the issue was not preserved, his trial
court attorney’s failure to move for a new trial constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
¶3. This Court finds that the trial attorney’s ore tenus motion was not a motion for a new
trial. Respecting Ivory’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a new trial is not warranted.
While the trial attorney’s omission did constitute deficient performance, Ivory suffered no
prejudice because his convictions were supported by the overwhelming weight of the
evidence.
¶4. Accordingly, Ivory’s request for a new trial is denied, and we affirm his convictions
and sentences.
FACTS
¶5. On December 18, 2016, the Amory Police Department received a 911 call at
approximately 7:40 p.m. from a Chevron gas station located on Highway 278 in Amory,
Mississippi. The gas station clerk reported that a man with a handgun had accosted two
people who were sitting in an idling car by entering the vehicle’s back seat and demanding
their money. At the time of the 911 call, the two individuals—fourteen-year old Emilee Slade
and sixteen-year-old Evan Burks—had exited the vehicle and entered the station. The clerk
had locked the door to await the arrival of law-enforcement officers. Chevron surveillance
video depicts the alleged assailant leaving the vehicle moments after Slade and Burks had
2 entered the Chevron gas station; the man, after leaving the car, disappears from the
surveillance video.
¶6. Amory police responded to the call within minutes and immediately began to search
the area. The teenagers identified the suspect as a tall, black male wearing dark clothes,
including a “hoodie,” a dark “puffy” jacket, and a toboggan.1 Shortly after their arrival,
officers stopped a black man near the Chevron station who appeared to match the description
provided, but they released him after that man was found not to be the suspect. Don
Meredith, an Amory police investigator, interviewed the victims, reviewed the Chevron
surveillance video, and took DNA samples from the vehicle the suspect had exited.2 Officers
did not acquire latent fingerprints from the vehicle. According to Amory Police Officer Josh
Bennett, another man who was stopped for questioning stated that he had seen someone
matching the suspect’s description walking to a nearby grocery store.
¶7. Upon learning the location of a potential suspect, Amory police officers proceeded
to Food Giant, a supermarket near the Chevron gas station.3 Officer Bennett testified that,
as the officers entered the store, “at one of the first [cash] registers there on the left there was
1 Amory Police Officer Josh Bennett testified he received the description of the suspect as a black male, more than six feet tall, wearing a black jacket and sweat pants. 2 According to Amory Police Criminal Investigator Don Meredith, the DNA sample collected from the vehicle was insufficient to produce a DNA profile after a crime-laboratory analysis. 3 Food Giant is located on Highway 278 less than a mile from the Chevron station. The Subway sandwich shop—where Slade and Burks testified the assailant approached them—also adjoins Highway 278 and Food Giant.
3 a black male facing away from us with the clothing description, [and] about the same height.”
That man was Deionta Ivory.
¶8. As the officers approached and searched him, Ivory, according to multiple officers
present, stated, “I didn’t rob anybody.” Bennett testified, along with other officers, that Ivory
was wearing “a black hoodie” with “black sweatpants that were pulled down a little below
his waist, revealing what looked like to be [a] navy blue . . . undergarment.” After stopping
and questioning Ivory, the officers took him into police custody. Officers searched Ivory and
found no weapons. Ivory’s vehicle was parked and running in the Food Giant parking lot.
Ivory consented to a search of his vehicle; the search did not reveal anything.
¶9. After Ivory’s arrest, Investigator Meredith found and interviewed another person of
interest and met with Burks and Slade to narrow their identification of the suspect.
¶10. Meredith prepared photograph lineups for Burks and Slade; the lineup presented to
Burks exhibited eighteen photographs, including Ivory and the other person of interest. Burks
testified that he had identified Ivory when the lineup was shown to him. The lineup presented
to Slade contained twenty-four photographs, including Ivory. Slade testified that she had also
identified Ivory when the lineup was shown to her.
¶11. Meredith also collected and reviewed Food Giant surveillance video from December
18. The video footage revealed that Ivory was present at Food Giant at least twice that
evening: once at approximately 7:00 p.m. and again at approximately 8:14 p.m., shortly
4 before his arrest.4 According to Meredith, the Food Giant videos depict Ivory wearing “[a]
dark hoodie sweatshirt with a camo toboggan on . . . a black rim around the end of it, and []
dark-colored sweatpants on.” Meredith testified that Ivory did not have on a black “puffy”
jacket during his trips to Food Giant; but, according to Meredith, Ivory may have “changed
tops.” Meredith acknowledged that the Chevron video of the suspect depicted the alleged
assailant “wearing a vest with a light-colored jacket underneath.”5
¶12. Meredith interviewed Ivory on December 21, 2016, after Slade’s and Burks’s
identifications. Ivory waived his Miranda rights and denied involvement in the alleged
incident. Ivory claimed that he had traveled to his residence—located at Pope Apartments
in Amory—between his two Sunday evening trips to Food Giant.6
¶13. Ivory gave written consent for Meredith to search his residence. During the search
later that day, Amory police officers took possession of a replica pistol from Ivory’s night
4 According to Amory police officers, the Subway sandwich shop did not have outdoor video surveillance for December 18. 5 The surveillance videos from Food Giant of Deointa Ivory and from the Chevron gas station of the assailant were shown to the jury and entered into evidence. Meredith identified Ivory’s presence in the surveillance videos from Food Giant before and after the alleged incident. Haley Chism worked at the Chevron and testified at trial that she been present at the gas station on December 18. According to Chism, she knew Ivory because the two had attended high school together. Chism testified that she watched the Chevron surveillance video but that the man who exited the vehicle did not look like Ivory. 6 Ivory later admitted traveling to an additional location—Moore Manor Apartments—to buy marijuana between his trips to Food Giant. A witness testified that video surveillance from Moore Manor on December 18 had existed, but it had been “recorded over.”
5 stand. The officers also seized “a large, black down puffy jacket, and also collected a
toboggan that [Ivory] had with a bunch of other toboggans that were there.” Meredith
testified that he “picked . . . [what] most closely resembled what I thought was worn in the
video from Chevron.”7
¶14. A Monroe County grand jury indicted Ivory on one count of attempted armed robbery
of Evan Burks under Mississippi Code Section 97-3-79 (Rev. 2014), and one count of
kidnaping of Burks and Emilee Slade under Mississippi Code Section 97-3-53 (Rev. 2014).
¶15. Burks and Slade testified at trial. Slade recounted that she had sat with Burks in his
car after leaving an Amory Subway sandwich shop. While the vehicle idled in the Subway
parking lot, a man tapped on the car’s passenger window and asked the two for food. Slade
testified that the man then exhibited a firearm and said “this is a robbery.”
¶16. According to Slade, the man entered the back seat of the car and asked Burks to drive
to a bank to “get $300.” Slade testified that “I could see his face” from light from the
Subway’s windows and from another adjacent restaurant. Burks drove the car to a bank near
a local Wal-Mart store, but he did not withdraw money. Burks continued to drive on
Highway 278 in Amory until he proceeded to the Chevron gas station; Slade testified that the
man asked Burks to enter the Chevron station and buy him a pack of cigarettes.
7 Burks identified the pistol found during the search as consistent with the pistol used during the incident. Burks also identified the seized vest as consistent with the vest the robber had worn because “it looks just like it” as a “black jacket.”
6 ¶17. Burks exited the vehicle first at the Chevron while Slade remained in the car with the
man. According to Slade, the man continued a conversation with her until he asked Slade to
enter the Chevron station and “hurry [Burks] up.” Slade left the vehicle and entered the
Chevron, after which the store clerk called 911. Slade identified the man as “about 6’2 . . .
[b]etween 170 and 190 [pounds]. . . . [and] in his twenties.” She testified that she saw the
Chevron surveillance video of the man leaving the vehicle shortly after she entered the
Chevron station. At trial, Slade identified Ivory as the perpetrator.
¶18. Burks testified that he was sitting in an idling car preparing to leave the Subway
restaurant with Slade when a man approached the vehicle and asked for food. At trial, Burks
identified Ivory as the man.8 According to Burks, when Slade and Burks communicated that
they had no food the man displayed a gun. Burks described the gun as a black, semi-
automatic pistol “like a [G]lock” and “[n]ot a revolver.”
¶19. According to Burks, the man entered the back seat and asked Burks to “give me your
money.” Burks testified that he gave the man all of the money he had: $6. Burks also testified
8 Burks testified he “got a clear look at [the man] two good times,” specifically
The first time is when he first approached the car, knocked on the window, and I could see him, because Subway has exterior lights around the building. So I was able to see him then. And then when you open a door car, the interior lights come on. So when he opened the car door, I was able to see him then.
Burks also testified during his in-court identification that he was “[w]ithout a doubt in my mind” that Ivory was the assailant.
7 that the man told him to drive to a bank to withdraw money; Burks drove to a nearby bank
but did not exit the vehicle.
¶20. Burks testified that he continued driving briefly until the man told him to stop at the
Chevron station to buy a pack of cigarettes. Burks exited the vehicle, entered the gas station,
and told the store clerk to call the police. Burks testified that the suspect “dipped” from the
vehicle and “was gone” moments after Slade entered the Chevron station.
¶21. After the trial court denied the defense’s motion for a directed verdict, the defense
called multiple witnesses, including Ivory.
¶22. Ivory’s defense concerned his alleged speech impediment. Slade testified that the man
in the vehicle did not have a problem with his speech. Burks also testified that this man did
not stutter and spoke “normal.”9 Meredith testified that he did not notice any speech
impediment.
¶23. The defense called Sylvia Koonce, Ivory’s mother, to “discuss whether or not [Ivory]
has ever had any speech issues.” Koonce testified that Ivory began to stutter from an early
age, that his condition was hereditary, and that the stutter was “trigger[ed]” in stressful
situations. Toshemie Wilson, an Amory High School teacher, testified that Ivory stuttered
during school; specifically, when Ivory responded in conversation, he would speak in a “low
9 Amory Police Criminal Investigator Andy Long also was present with other law enforcement during Ivory’s arrest at the Food Giant. Long was acquainted with Ivory before his arrest and testified that Ivory, in their previous interactions, stuttered “at times” and “off and on.” Long testified that Ivory stuttered with “some words” while talking with the officers during the stop.
8 tone so that . . . people would not hear him stutter.” Wilson testified Ivory’s stutter would
increase in the presence of unfamiliar people; further, “if [Ivory] was in a stressful
environment, his stuttering would increase even more” and Ivory “did [not] have the ability
to turn [his stutter] on or off.”
¶24. Bo Young, a cashier at Food Giant during the incident and a prior acquaintance,
testified that he had seen Ivory in the store twice on December 18. Young testified that Ivory
entered Food Giant the first time, bought a Black & Mild cigar, and asked to receive “cash
back” from a card. Ivory entered the store a second time to buy a candy bar and also to
receive “cash back.” Young testified that, during Ivory’s second appearance at Food Giant,
he saw law-enforcement officers enter the parking lot; Young asked Ivory, “what [are] the
police doing?” In response, Ivory said he was not sure. According to Young, Ivory repeatedly
asked “what did I do?” after the police entered and stopped him. Young additionally testified
that Ivory did not stutter during their conversations that evening but that Ivory “generally
[does not] have great communication” and that “he drags his words . . . out.”
¶25. Ivory testified that he had been at a friend’s house before going to Food Giant the first
time to withdraw money off a card. Ivory explained that he left Food Giant to make a
purchase at Moore Manor, an Amory apartment complex. Ivory testified that he left Moore
Manor then and went to his house before returning to Food Giant the second time.
¶26. According to Ivory, he drove to Moore Manor Apartments between his trips to Food
Giant to buy marijuana and went home to “drop the weed off.” Ivory testified he went back
9 to Food Giant to “get some more money off my card” to buy more marijuana. Officers found
marijuana in Ivory’s sock when they searched Ivory at Food Giant.
¶27. Ivory estimated twenty to thirty minutes elapsed during his trip from Food Giant to
Moore Manor and that he was at home approximately ten minutes before returning to Food
Giant the second time.
¶28. Ivory testified that he stated, “I didn’t rob anybody” at the Food Giant because he was
aware that an incident had occurred at Chevron earlier that night. Ivory claimed that he had
seen police cars at the Chevron while driving before his second trip to Food Giant and
“figured that Chevron probably got robbed or something like that.” Further, Ivory testified
that “the first thing in my head [at Food Giant] was [the officers] probably think I did it
[because] I [had] on a black hoodie and some black pants.”
¶29. During cross-examination, the State asked Ivory why he had said he was not sure
about the evening’s events during his first interview with Investigator Meredith. Specifically,
the State asked Ivory whether “we can at least agree . . . that you were within eyesight of the
Chevron at 7:42 p.m. on December 18, 2016.” According to the State, phone records revealed
that Ivory had a telephone conversation with Sierra Wall—his girlfriend—at approximately
7:42 p.m. Ivory testified that at approximately 7:42 p.m. he was passing the Chevron station
“in [his] truck . . . going back to Food Giant.” Ivory also testified that he was aware that an
event had occurred at Subway while he was at Food Giant before his arrest and that he had
acquired this knowledge from hearing from “other people” who were “talking about it.”
10 Ivory explained that he did not reveal his trip to Moore Manor Apartments during the initial
interview with Meredith because of his marijuana purchase.
¶30. Ivory testified that on December 18, he had worn a black Nike pullover, black
Aeropostale pants . . . [with] writing down my leg . . . [with white] bold letters, where you
can see it.” Ivory stated that he did not change clothes between his trips to Food Giant. Ivory
said that he had not been wearing the black vest or toboggan that were seized during the
search of his residence.
¶31. Sierra Wall testified that she had talked with Ivory at least twice on December 18: at
approximately 7:27 p.m. and 7:42 p.m.10 According to Wall, following their conversation at
7:27 p.m., Ivory was meeting with an individual to buy marijuana. Wall testified that at 7:42
p.m., Ivory communicated that he had left that person’s residence and was driving to Food
Giant. According to Wall, during their 7:42 p.m. conversation, Ivory had told her to “be
careful because there [are] a lot of police out there” and that “we stayed on the phone for I
think seven minutes.” Additionally, Wall testified that Ivory stutters, “[e]specially when he
gets nervous or anything like that, talking in front of anybody.”
¶32. At trial, Investigator Meredith identified the gun discovered at Ivory’s residence as
a replica 1911 Colt .45 pistol that shoots spring-loaded plastic projectiles. Meredith testified
that the gun was manufactured with a red identifier on the barrel to show that it was a replica,
10 Meredith maintained on cross-examination, during rebuttal, that his “position [was] that between 7:27 and 7:42 . . . [there] was enough time for this crime to have been committed[].”
11 but the indicator had been removed. Meredith opined that the indicator can be removed “to
make it look like a real firearm.”
¶33. Ivory testified that he did not carry the replica pistol with him on December 18. He
stated that he kept the pistol for his protection if it became necessary to scare an intruder
away but that the pistol remained in his bedroom. Wall also testified that Ivory owned a toy
gun but that she never saw the gun after he first obtained it. On cross-examination, the State
introduced into evidence photographs from Ivory’s cell phone that depicted him wielding
what appeared to be a handgun.
¶34. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts, finding Ivory guilty of armed
robbery instead of the indicted offense of attempted armed robbery.11 During the sentencing
hearing, the defense made a motion for JNOV. Ivory’s attorney argued “that the jury’s final
decision, when weighed against the evidence presented by the defense witnesses, would
11 Both attorneys agreed to a jury instruction that addressed both armed robbery and attempted armed robbery. Though the issue was not raised on appeal, both armed robbery and attempted armed robbery are defined by Mississippi Code Section 97-3-79 and carry the same penalty. Miss. Code. Ann. § 97-3-79 (Rev. 2014). See also Davis v. State, 684 So. 2d 643, 660 (Miss. 1996) (“Of import is the fact that any robbery occurred. All defenses and proof available to Davis remained equally applicable. Therefore, the amendment was one of form and not substance.”); Harris v. State, 445 So. 2d 1369, 1370 (Miss. 1984) (“Comparison of the above quoted code section and the indictment reveal that in Mississippi both an attempt to take and an actual taking of another’s personal property against his will by violence to his person or by putting such person in fear of immediate injury to his person by the exhibition of a deadly weapon constitutes robbery. Therefore, the wording of the indictment comports with the law . . . .”); Glenn v. State, 996 So. 2d 148, 155 (¶ 29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (“All of the elements necessary for attempt and for armed robbery are present, including the specific overt acts that took place . . . .”).
12 indicate that their decision went against the evidence of certain physical attributes that would
show [] Ivory not to have been the assailant in this matter.” The motion was denied by the
trial judge during the sentencing hearing.
¶35. Ivory was given two consecutive sentences: a forty-year sentence, with ten years
suspended, for armed robbery, and a thirty-year sentence for kidnaping. On June 9, 2018,
Ivory appealed.
¶36. On appeal, Ivory advances the principal argument that the verdicts were contrary to
the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and, secondarily, that his trial attorney’s failure
to make a post-trial motion for a new trial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Ivory
argues that his ore tenus motion for JNOV should be construed by this Court as a motion for
new trial.
DISCUSSION
I. Whether the verdicts were contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
A. Motion for JNOV
¶37. Because Ivory’s attorney made an ore tenus motion for JNOV and because the
defense made no motion for a new trial, this Court must determine whether his ore
tenus motion should be construed as a motion for a new trial.12
12 This Court has held that
[t]he standards for review of a denial of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for denial of a new trial require differing analyses. A
13 ¶38. “In order to preserve the issue for consideration on appeal, the defendant must raise
the issue that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence as a ground
for his motion for new trial.” Murray v. State, 802 So. 2d 107, 109 (¶ 6) (Miss. Ct. App.
2001) (citing Howard v. State, 507 So. 2d 58, 63 (Miss. 1987)). The movant “must set out
specific, not general, facts.” Harrison v. McMillan, 828 So. 2d 756, 763 (¶ 21) (Miss. 2002)
(citing Sheffield, 749 So. 2d at 126) (reviewing a post-trial motion styled as a motion for new
trial). A motion for a new trial will fail for an “unquestionably [] vague and general
statement” that does not “distinguish any particular deficiency in the proof.” Leonard v.
State, 972 So. 2d 24, 30 (¶ 24) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).
¶39. Additionally, the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure require a “written motion
of the defendant” to “vacate any judgment and grant a new trial.” MRCrP 25.1. The rule
provides that a motion for a new trial must be made “within ten (10) days after entry of
judgment (which, for purposes of this Rule, includes both adjudication of guilt and
sentence).” Id.
denial of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is subject to de novo review on appeal. Daniels v. State, 107 So. 3d 961, 963 (Miss. 2013) (citing Johnson v. St. Dominics–Jackson Mem’l Hosp., 967 So. 2d 20, 22 (Miss. 2007)). “A motion for JNOV is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence.” Id. Conversely, “[a] motion for a new trial falls within a lower standard of review than does that of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. . . . A motion for a new trial simply challenges the weight of the evidence.” Daniels, 107 So. 3d at 963 (quoting Sheffield v. State, 749 So. 2d 123, 127 (Miss. 1999)).
Kirk v. State, 160 So. 3d 685, 695 (¶ 24) (Miss. 2015).
14 ¶40. Ivory and the State agree that the trial attorney made a “motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict” during the sentencing hearing and that Ivory’s attorney did not
request a new trial. Ivory argues that “Ivory’s trial counsel moved for a JNOV here but
appears to have argued based on the weight of the evidence.” The trial judge denied the
motion. Ivory did not make another post-trial motion. His only post-trial filings concern this
direct appeal.13
¶41. Ivory’s motion for JNOV cannot be construed as a motion for a new trial. Clearly,
Ivory’s attorney failed to make a cognizable motion for a new trial. The judge denied the
JNOV motion that defense counsel did make, and Ivory is not allowed to recharacterize the
style or substance of the motion.14 Moreover, the trial court was not tendered a proper written
motion for a new trial. See, e.g., Cooper v. Lawson, 264 So. 2d 890, 891 (Miss. 1972)
(“[B]efore a litigant can avail himself of the contention the verdict is against the weight of
the evidence, it is essential that the contention be embodied in a motion for a new trial in the
lower court and be passed upon by the trial judge. The reason underlying the rule is that a
trial judge cannot be put in error on a matter which was never presented to him for decision.”
(citing Clark v. State, 206 Miss. 701, 39 So. 2d 783 (1949))); Tutor v. State, 271 So. 3d 552,
556 (¶ 11) (Miss. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (“The failure to preserve a matter
13 Those post-trial filings are his trial attorney’s motion to withdraw and for appointment of appellate counsel and the notice of appeal. 14 The judge ruled that, “based on the evidence presented to the jury, the motion is denied.”
15 by motion for new trial . . . may also serve as a procedural bar to its consideration by an
appellate court.” (quoting Alonso v. State, 838 So. 2d 309, 313 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002))).
¶42. The Court finds, under these circumstances, that Ivory could not and did not raise a
weight-of-the-evidence challenge by means of an ore tenus JNOV motion. Accordingly, with
respect to this argument, we hold that Ivory has not preserved the weight-of-the-evidence
issue for appeal.
B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
¶43. In the alternative, Ivory argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel
because “the trial court [was] not given the opportunity to rule on the weight of the
evidence.” Ivory avers that “failure to file a post-trial motion for new trial waives a
defendant’s right to argue on appeal that the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of
the evidence,” and that the record demonstrates that these verdicts were contrary to the
overwhelming weight of the evidence.
¶44. A criminal defendant has a right to effective assistance of counsel under our state and
federal constitutions. U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV; Miss. Const. art. 3, § 26; Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). “While post-conviction
proceedings are often the most appropriate forum for review of ineffective assistance of
counsel, we ‘may nevertheless reach the merits of the ineffectiveness issue where . . . the
record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions. . . .’” Taylor v.
State, 167 So. 3d 1143, 1146 (¶ 5) (Miss. 2015) (quoting Read v. State, 430 So. 2d 832, 841
16 (Miss. 1983)). Ivory’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on facts fully
apparent from the record, and this Court is entitled to review that claim.
¶45. The benchmark for ineffective assistance of counsel is whether performance of
counsel “‘undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot
be relied on as having produced a just result.’” Foster v. State, 687 So. 2d 1124, 1129 (Miss.
1996) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686). See also Holly v. State, 716 So. 2d 979, 989 (¶
37) (Miss. 1998) (“This Court looks at the totality of circumstances to determine whether
counsel’s efforts were both deficient and prejudicial.” (citing Carney v. State, 525 So. 2d
776, 780 (Miss. 1988); Read, 430 So. 2d at 839)). “Whether a defendant has received
ineffective assistance of counsel is a question of law reviewed de novo under two prongs:
‘[f]irst, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. . . . Second, the
defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.’” Taylor, 167
So. 3d at 1146 (¶ 5) (alteration in original) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687).
¶46. Under the first prong, the defendant must prove that the attorney’s performance was
deficient, and “[t]here is a strong but rebuttable presumption that counsel’s conduct falls
within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Holland v. State, 656 So. 2d
1192, 1197 (Miss. 1995) (citing Carney, 525 So. 2d at 780; Gilliard v. State, 462 So. 2d 710,
714 (Miss. 1985)).
¶47. The second prong is met if “the defendant . . . show[s] there is reasonable probability
that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
17 different.” Hannah v. State, 943 So. 2d 20, 24 (¶ 6) (Miss. 2006) (citing Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694). We review evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict and disturb the
verdict only when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow
it stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Little v. State, 233 So. 3d 288, 292 (¶
1) (Miss. 2017).
¶48. The trial attorney’s inaction here satisfies the first prong. This Court has held that the
failure to make a post-trial motion for new trial constitutes deficient performance because
“the trial judge [does] not have an opportunity to reconsider whether the verdict was contrary
to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” Parker v. State, 30 So. 3d 1222, 1235 (¶ 48)
(Miss. 2010). Here, there was “[n]o strategic reason” for the trial attorney’s failure to file “a
motion for a new trial arguing that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of
the evidence.” Woods v. State, 242 So. 3d 47, 58 (¶ 50) (Miss. 2018).
¶49. Regarding the second prong, the Court must determine whether trial counsel’s failure
to make a proper motion for new trial prejudiced the defendant. The Court “consider[s]
whether a reasonable probability exists that the trial court would have granted the motion.”
Id. at 58-59 (¶ 50). No prejudice results from that failure if there is no reasonable probability
that the motion would have been granted. Pace v. State, 242 So. 3d 107, 117-18 (Miss. 2018)
(¶ 27) (defendant must show, “‘but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694)); Giles v.
State, 187 So. 3d 116, 121 (¶ 13) (Miss. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (“A
18 reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694)).
¶50. Ivory, in measuring this failure to consider the overwhelming weight of the evidence,
contends that the verdicts work an “unconscionable injustice.” Ivory argues that the trial
court would have considered that
[i]t was clearly established that Ivory has a life-long and readily apparent speech impediment. . . . [N]either Slade nor Burk[s] perceived any speech problem with the man who allegedly [kidnaped] and tried to rob them with a handgun. The fact that the assailant did not stutter combined with the timeline evidence, the inconclusive clothing evidence, and conflicting description of the alleged weapon involved, supports only one reasonable conclusion – Slade and Burk[s] misidentified Ivory as the man who [kidnaped] and tried to rob them.
¶51. The State maintains that no new trial should be ordered because the verdict is
supported by the weight of the evidence, first and foremost, that Slade and Burks did identify
Ivory as the perpetrator. Further, Ivory admitted that he was near the crime scene at the time
of the incident—he acknowledged passing by the Chevron station at approximately 7:42
p.m.—and being at a nearby supermarket shortly afterward. The State also argues that “he
was wearing clothing matching the description of the suspect . . . and that [Burks] identified
the gun recovered from Ivory’s apartment as consistent with the gun he pointed in his face
during the crime.”
¶52. This Court, in numerous decisions, has reviewed the sufficiency and weight of the
evidence, to consider whether a new trial was required. See, e.g., Pace, 242 So. 3d 107, 119
(¶ 34) (“[There is not] a reasonable probability that the trial court would have found that the
19 evidence preponderated so heavily against the verdict that the verdict was against the
overwhelming weight of the evidence.”); Parker, 30 So. 3d at 1235 (¶ 49) (Miss. 2010)
(“[T]he trial judge would [not] have granted the motion for a new trial had he been afforded
a second chance to review the evidence . . . .”).
¶53. Ivory cites our recent decision in Woods as an example of a case in which the weight
of evidence was “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Woods, 242 So. 3d at
55 (¶ 61) (citing Giles, 187 So. 3d at 120-21). In Woods, the defendant was convicted of
murder following the shooting of his girlfriend’s estranged husband; the shooting followed
an altercation at the girlfriend’s home. Id. at 51-54 (¶¶ 1-22). We found that “[h]ad the trial
court been presented with a motion for a new trial, it would have evaluated the evidence and
the applicability of the Castle Doctrine.” Id. at 61 (¶ 59). Because there was a reasonable
possibility that the trial court would have granted the motion in consideration of the
overwhelming weight of the evidence, this Court held “that the evidence preponderated so
heavily against the verdict that a new trial was required to avoid sanctioning an
unconscionable injustice.” Id. at 62 (¶ 62).
¶54. Ivory’s attorney argues that the evidence “weighs more heavily in favor of acquittal
based on misidentification” such that the “probability exists in Ivory’s case to a sufficient
degree to likewise undermine the confidence in the outcome of his case.” We disagree.
¶55. This Court recognizes that “[f]actual disputes are properly resolved by a jury and do
not mandate a new trial.” Beasley v. State, 136 So. 3d 393, 403 (Miss. 2014) (¶ 35) (citing
20 Temple v. State, 498 So. 2d 379, 382 (Miss. 1986)). Further, “[c]onflicting testimony does
not evince overwhelming evidence; where the verdict turns on the credibility of conflicting
testimony and the credibility of the witnesses it is the jury’s duty to resolve the conflict.”
Swanagan v. State, 229 So. 3d 698, 705 (¶ 28) (Miss. 2017) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Ambrose v. State, 133 So. 3d 786, 793 (Miss. 2013)).
¶56. That the evidence that neither Slade nor Burks discerned a speech impediment, Ivory
contends, combined with other ambiguities, shows that the verdicts were contrary to the
weight of the evidence. But such evidence does not “support[] only one reasonable
conclusion,” namely, misidentification. Evidence of a sporadic speech impediment, while
relevant to the physical characteristics of the suspect, is not so contrary to the overwhelming
weight of the evidence—especially the evidence respecting identification of the assailant—to
require the trial court to order a new trial.
¶57. Both Slade and Burks testified that they had ample opportunity to observe the man
who accosted them. Their initial descriptions of that man conformed to Ivory’s physical
characteristics and his clothing. The State also adduced evidence that both Slade and Burks
immediately identified Ivory as the assailant in photograph lineups days after the incident.
The lineups were extensive, and no objection regarding their use was raised. Slade and Burks
did not vacillate in their testimony at trial that Ivory was the man who had robbed and
kidnaped them on December 18, 2016. The totality of evidence was sufficient to support a
finding by the jury that Ivory was the perpetrator. See, e.g., Shinn v. State, 179 So. 3d 1006
21 (Miss. 2015) (witness identified defendant from photograph lineup and officers and
recovered clothing from a search of defendant’s residence matching robber’s description);
White v. State, 223 So. 3d 859 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (carjacking victims identified defendant
in photo lineup and reaffirmed identification at trial). We find that the evidence presented
was sufficient to support the convictions and does not preponderate against the verdicts.
¶58. Whatever conflicts in the evidence may have existed were resolved against Ivory by
the jury. In reviewing the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the verdict, we
find no reasonable probability that the trial judge would have granted a motion for a new
trial. Although his trial counsel was deficient for failing to file a motion for new trial, Ivory
was not prejudiced by that omission because the verdicts were not contrary to the
overwhelming weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we deny Ivory’s request for a new trial.
CONCLUSION
¶59. We deny Ivory’s request for a new trial, we reject his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claim, and we affirm the judgment of the Monroe County Circuit Court.
¶60. AFFIRMED.
RANDOLPH, C.J., KING, P.J., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.