"[I]ssues such as these respecting the indictment are essentially procedural and susceptible of waiver if not timely preserved and presented on direct appeal." Perkins v. State, 487 So.2d 791, 792 (Miss. 1986); Jones v. State, 356 So.2d 1182, 1183 (Miss. 1978); Wilcher v. State, 152 Miss. 13, 118 So. 356 (1928).
Such is the case where the defendant fails to allege with "specificity and detail" that his counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial to his defense. Brooks, 573 So.2d at 1354; Perkins v. State, 487 So.2d 791, 793 (Miss. 1986). The Brooks case involved a prisoner who claimed that his attorney was ineffective in failing to object to allegedly defective indictments and in advising him to plead guilty.
Attorney Burdine was given no opportunity to respond to and confront in court the claims brought against him. As with the case at hand, in Perkins v. State, 487 So.2d 791 (Miss. 1986), the criminal defendant sought post-conviction relief under Miss. Code Ann. §§ 99-39-1, et seq. (Supp. 1985).
("In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, 'the post-conviction applicant to this Court must demonstrate with specificity and detail the elements of the claim.'") (quoting Woodward v. State, 635 So.2d 805, 808 (Miss. 1993); Perkins v. State, 487 So.2d 791, 793 (Miss. 1986)).
Additionally, this Court has found this issue to be "a procedural defect which must be raised by special demurrer to the indictment or it is waived." Id ; see alsoPerkins v. State , 487 So. 2d 791, 792 (Miss. 1986) ("We note that issues such as these respecting the indictment are essentially procedural and susceptible of waiver if not timely preserved and presented on direct appeal." (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1) (Supp.
See M.R.A.P. 22(b) ; Archer v. State , 986 So. 2d 951, 954 (Miss. 2008) ; Woodward v. State , 635 So. 2d 805, 807-08 (Miss. 1993) ("Where the same counsel represents the defendant at trial and on direct appeal, the claim is procedurally viable on application for post-conviction relief." (citing Perkins v. State , 487 So. 2d 791, 792-93 (Miss. 1986) )). ¶8. Substantively, ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims involve
This Court has held that Harrell "must allege matters [regarding ineffective assistance] with specificity and detail." Perkins v. State, 487 So.2d 791, 793 (Miss. 1986). Harrell offers only an unsupported assertion that he was prejudiced because his counsel "failed to show up."
In Kilgore, we reiterated the general rule and held that "we may not give retroactive effect to newly enacted statutes of limitations shortening the period within which a claim arising prior to enactment must be brought." Kilgore, 508 So.2d at 1044-45 (citing Perkinsv. State, 487 So.2d 791, 792 (Miss. 1986); Garrett v. Beaumont, 24 Miss. 377, 379 (1851); and Reynolds v. Logan Charter Serv. Inc., 565 F. Supp. 84, 86 (N.D.Miss. 1983)).
Such alleged deficiencies must be presented with specificity and detail. Perkins v. State, 487 So.2d 791, 793 (Miss. 1986). ¶ 18. Applying the two-prong Strickland test, Johnston must first prove that his counsel's performance was deficient.
"It is axiomatic that statutes of limitations may not be made retroactive to the prejudice of a party." Perkins v. State, 487 So.2d 791, 792 (Miss. 1986). Although the prosecution of Buford Christmas was timely under the amended statute of limitations in Miss.