2010) ("[T]he failure to file a motion for a new trial constituted a deficient performance under prong one of Strickland , since the trial judge did not have an opportunity to reconsider whether the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence."); Pace v. State , 242 So. 3d 107, 118 (¶31) (Miss. 2018) (Pace's counsel was deficient in failing to file post-trial motions challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial.); Giles v. State , 187 So. 3d 116, 125 (¶33) (Miss.
On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, "the critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction." Pace v. State , 242 So. 3d 107, 118 (Miss. 2018) (quoting Swanagan v. State , 229 So. 3d 698, 703 (Miss. 2017) ).
"The accused has been prejudiced if there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different without the evidence." Pace v. State , 242 So. 3d 107, 120 (Miss. 2018) (citing Evans v. Davis , 875 F.3d 210, 218 (5th Cir. 2017) ). ¶20.
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, 104 S.Ct. 2052 )); Giles v. State , 187 So. 3d 116, 121 (¶ 13) (Miss.
"The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged with a motion for a directed verdict, a request for a peremptory instruction, or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)." Pace v. State, 242 So.3d 107, 117 (¶24) (Miss. 2018).
We recognize that the supreme court and this Court have found on direct appeal that a lawyer’s complete failure to file a post-trial motion amounts to deficient performance, thus satisfying the first prong of the Strickland test. See, e.g., Pace v. State, 242 So. 3d 107, 118 (¶30) (Miss. 2018) (holding that the "failure to file post-trial motions challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence constituted deficient performance"); Woods v. State, 242 So. 3d 47, 58 (¶50) (Miss. 2018); Giles v. State, 187 So. 3d 116, 125-26 (¶33) (Miss. 2016); Parker v. State, 30 So. 3d 1222, 1235 (¶48) (Miss. 2010); Holland v. State, 656 So. 2d 1192, 1198 (Miss. 1995); Ford v. State, 333 So. 3d 896, 914 (¶51) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022); Story v. State, 296 So. 3d 104, 114 (127) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).
"When a defendant’s substantive or fundamental rights are affected, this Court will notice a plain error not identified or distinctly specified." Pace v. State, 242 So. 3d 107, 115 (¶20) (Miss. 2018) (internal quotation mark omitted) (citing M.R.A.P. 28(a)(3); Foster v. State, 148 So. 3d 1012, 1018 (¶20) (Miss. 2014)). "When an error impacts a fundamental right of the defendant, ‘procedural rules give way to prevent a miscarriage of justice,’ requiring this Court to address issues on plain-error review and correct any fundamental viola- tions."
¶46. "When a defendant's substantive or fundamental rights are affected, this Court will notice a plain error not identified or distinctly specified." Pace v. State, 242 So.3d 107, 115 (¶20) (Miss. 2018) (internal quotation mark omitted) (citing M.R.A.P. 28(a)(3); Foster v. State, 148 So.3d 1012, 1018 (¶20) (Miss. 2014)). "When an error impacts a fundamental right of the defendant, 'procedural rules give way to prevent a miscarriage of justice,' requiring this Court to address issues on plain-error review and correct any fundamental violations."
¶20. "The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged with a motion for a directed verdict, a request for a peremptory instruction, or a motion for [JNOV]." Middleton v. State , 281 So. 3d 858, 862 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Pace v. State , 242 So. 3d 107, 117 (¶24) (Miss. 2018) ). "On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, th[e] [reviewing court] considers the [circuit] [court's ruling at the last time the sufficiency of the evidence was challenged."
"The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged with a motion for a directed verdict, a request for a peremptory instruction, or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)." Pace v. State , 242 So. 3d 107, 117 (¶24) (Miss. 2018) (citing McClain v. State , 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993) ). "When the defendant proceeds with his case after the State rests and the court overrules the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, the defendant has waived the appeal of that directed verdict." Id . at (¶25) (quoting Holland v. State , 656 So. 2d 1192, 1197 (Miss.