00 fine, plus court costs. The court of appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court on January 9, 2001. Lawrence v. State, 780 So.2d 652 (Miss. App. 2001), reh'g denied Mar. 13, 2001 (Cause No. 1999-KA-00658-COA). Lawrence did not file a petition for certiorari with the Mississippi Supreme Court. He filed a motion for post-conviction collateral relief (PCR) with the Mississippi Supreme Court on April 21, 2008, which the court dismissed as untimely filed on May 28, 2008. The petitioner filed the instant federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus on November 26, 2008.
In a recent Court of Appeals case, the same issue of an enhanced sentence was addressed. The Court of Appeals in Lawrence v.State, 780 So.2d 652, 658 (Miss.Ct.App. 2001) stated the following: It is a defendant's right and a choice to trial by jury. No one forced him to go to trial to be judged by a jury of his peers.
Counsel's decisions whether or not to file motions, call certain witnesses, ask certain questions, and make certain objections fall within the definition of trial strategy. Lawrence v. State, 780 So.2d 652, 659 (¶ 28) (Miss.Ct.App.2001). ¶ 15.
Counsel's decisions whether or not to file motions, call certain witnesses, ask certain questions, and make certain objections fall within the definition of trial strategy. Lawrence v. State,780 So. 2d 652, 659 (¶28) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). ¶15. Pittman claims that his trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to develop an alibi defense and present alibi witnesses who were present and able to testify, (2) conducting a limited cross-examination of the victim and failing to call the alleged victim's treating medical providers as witnesses, (3) failing to call the victim's mother as an adverse witness, (4) failing to pursue a Mississippi Rule of Evidence 412(b)(2)(C) motion, (5) failing to engage a defense expert witness on the subject of herpes, (6) failing to introduce evidence of past litigation between Pittman and the victim's mother concerning false sexual allegations, (7) permitting evidence of Pittman's blood-test/herpes-test results obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, (8) failing to introduce evidence that Pittman tested negative for all sexually transmitted diseases, and (9) failing to explore any and all defenses available to Pittman concerning the allegation that he gave the victim herpes.
All of this is measured by a totality of the circumstances with the court looking at the overall performance of the counselor. Lawrence v. State, 780 So.2d 652 (¶ 28) (Miss.Ct.App. 2001) (citing Bolton v. State, 734 So.2d 307, 309 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999)). With respect to the overall performance of the attorney, "counsel's choice of whether or not to file certain motions, call witnesses, ask certain questions, or make certain objections fall within the ambit of trial strategy."