Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A D’Iberville police officer arrested Damian Brown after spotting a firearm during a traffic stop. Brown appealed his resulting conviction for three counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced Brown to a total of twenty-four years to be served day for day without the benefit of early release or probation under Mississippi Code Section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2020), the habitual offender statute. Brown’s defense counsel filed a motion for JNOV or, alternatively, a new trial. The court denied the motions. To the Mississippi Supreme Court, Brown contended the trial court erred in denying his motions. The Supreme Court concluded the jury instructions given fairly and accurately announced the law of the case concerning constructive possession. The Supreme Court further found the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brown’s proposed jury instruction D-11 as it had already been fairly covered elsewhere in the instructions by the State’s jury instruction S-5, a more complete and accurate statement of the law. Furthermore, the Court concluded Brown was not entitled to a circumstantial evidence jury instruction based on Nevels v. Mississippi. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Brown v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Sedric Sutton sought compensation under Mississippi Code Sections 11-44-1 to -15 (Rev. 2019), Compensation to Victims of Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment, after his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute was vacated by the Mississippi Supreme Court. He argued his conviction was reversed on grounds not inconsistent with innocence and that the crime he committed was not a felony. Because Sutton failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of his claims. View "Sutton v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

This appeal raised a question of first impression for the Mississippi Supreme Court's consideration concerning the unit of prosecution in felon-in-possession cases. Stanley McGlasten, a convicted felon, was caught with four guns in a small residence. He was charged with and convicted of four separate violations of of Mississippi Code Section 97-37-5(1) (Rev. 2020). And he was sentenced to separate terms of ten years’ imprisonment on each of the four counts, to be served consecutively. Specifically, the issue for the Court's resolution was what the phrase, "any firearm" meant: did it mean one firearm—thus permitting the State to stretch the four firearms McGlasten simultaneously possessed into four separate counts, exposing him to four times the punishment? Or did it encompass the possession of multiple guns, thereby exposing McGlasten to just one count of unlawfully possessing the four firearms found that day in the house? After review, the Court felt it had no choice but to hold that the answer to both of these questions was yes. "[T]he statute’s use of the phrase 'any firearm' to define the unit of prosecution is susceptible to both the singular and plural meaning of 'any.' So it is without question ambiguous." When a criminal statute was ambiguous, the rule of lenity mandated the Court to interpret the statute in favor of the accused. "That means we must adopt the interpretation that 'any firearm' includes multiple firearms possessed at the same time and in the same place. Therefore, McGlasten’s multiple convictions cannot stand." Because the State presented evidence that McGlasten possessed the four weapons at the same time in the same small house, his four convictions merge into one count of conviction. Thus, only one of McGlasten’s convictions can be affirmed. The matter was remanded to the circuit court to vacate McGlasten's sentences, merge the four counts to one, and to resentence him on the one remaining count. View "McGlasten v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Undra Pulliam was granted an out-of-time appeal of his 2016 conviction for the sale of crack cocaine. The State charged Pulliam with the sale, transfer, or distribution of more than two but less than ten grams of crack cocaine in violation of Mississippi Code Section 41-29-139 (Rev. 2018). In 2018, Pulliam filed a postconviction petition seeking an out-of-time appeal, which was denied. The Court of Appeals reviewed this denial and reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, based on Pulliam’s unrefuted allegation that he had not been advised of his right to appeal. On remand, on August 17, 2020, a successor trial judge heard Pulliam’s request, after which he entered an order granting Pulliam thirty days to file an out-of-time appeal. Pulliam filed the present appeal at issue here, challenging his cocaine sale conviction and habitual offender sentence. Pulliam sought a new trial, first arguing the jury’s guilty verdict was against the weight of the evidence. And as part of his weight of the evidence challenge, Pulliam suggested a testifying Agent Brown improperly bolstered this evidence by pitching "White" as a trusted informant and provided improper opinion testimony by describing what he saw in a video as a drug deal. Pulliam also argued his two qualifying prior felony cocaine convictions were void, thus making his Section 99-19-81 habitual offender sentence improper. The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected all of Pulliam's arguments on appeal and affirmed his convictions and sentence. View "Pulliam v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A jury found Antonio Parker guilty of domestic-violence-based aggravated assault and kidnapping. On appeal, he argued the trial court wrongly denied him a continuance of his trial and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court found Parker had shown neither error nor resulting prejudice from the trial court’s denial of his fourth requested continuance. Furthermore, the Court found he did not prove his counsel was constitutionally deficient. View "Parker v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Cullen Fields was convicted by jury of sexual battery. He appealed, arguing the trial court erroneously denied his right to exercise two of his peremptory strikes during jury selection. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court found the trial court did not err by denying the two peremptory strikes Fields sought to exercise. Accordingly, it affirmed Fields' conviction. View "Fields v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A series of cases before the Mississippi Supreme Court began with a motion for post-conviction relief filed by the Mississippi Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel (CPCC) on behalf of David Cox, which was assigned No. 2015-DR-00978- SCT. That motion was followed by a series of pleas by Cox to dismiss his appeals, dismiss his counsel, and set an execution date. Subsequent to those pleas and on motion by the State, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the circuit court to determine whether Cox was competent to waive his appeals, and if so, whether his waiver was voluntarily and intelligently made. The trial court held a hearing and ultimately determined Cox was competent to waive appeals, and that he voluntarily and intelligently did so. That decision was followed by CPCC’s filing a notice to appeal that order, which was assigned No. 2021-CA-00515-SCT. The State then filed a motion to dismiss Case No. 2021-CA-00515-SCT, arguing that CPCC lacked standing to appeal. Cox continued to plead that all appeals be dismissed, that his post-conviction counsel be relieved of their duties, and that his execution date be set. CPCC responded in opposition to the State’s motion to dismiss, including filing a brief challenging the judgment of the trial court. After careful consideration of all pleadings, filings, evidence, hearing transcripts, briefs, and exhibits and the arguments and authorities cited by all in the two above-referenced cause numbers, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that Cox was competent to waive all of his appeals, and that his waiver was voluntarily and intelligently made. The Supreme Court denied the appeal of that judgment filed by CPCC. View "Cox v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Senque Wright was convicted by jury of possessing a dirk knife as a convicted felon. The trial court adjudged Wright a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2020) and sentenced him to serve ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The trial court denied Wright’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. Wright appealed, arguing the trial court erred by denying Wright’s motion to suppress evidence. Wright argued police lacked reasonable suspicion to support his detention and a patdown search. Wright further argued the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict because the State failed to meet its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wright’s knife was a prohibited dirk knife. The Mississippi Supreme Court concluded the officer had a reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop, therefore the trial court did not err by denying Wright’s motion to suppress evidence. Further, because the knife found in Wright’s possession was shown to the jury, sufficient evidence was presented for a reasonable juror to conclude that the knife was a dirk knife primarily used for stabbing. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. View "Wright v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

James Ficklin was convicted by jury of taking away a motor vehicle. In 2018, police sergeant Patrick Burt received a call from dispatch concerning a possible switched vehicle tag. Burt testified that he learned that the address associated with the tag was located on Herman Alford Drive in Neshoba County. Burt went to the house at that address, but he found no vehicle there. Burt knew that the owner of the house, Hal Rudolph, had recently passed away, so Burt contacted the owner’s son, Walt Rudolph. Walt confirmed that his father passed away on May 1, 2018, and left behind a 2017 Chevy Z71 Silverado. Walt further testified that the owner of that vehicle would be his father’s heirs, and that this vehicle remained at his father’s house after his father passed away. Walt also testified that the police did in fact contact him and told him that his father’s vehicle might have been missing. Even though Walt was out of town when he learned about his father’s vehicle, a relative verified to Walt that the vehicle was indeed missing from his father’s house. Walt attempted to locate the vehicle through its OnStar capability; however, such efforts were unsuccessful. Weeks later, the vehicle was found at a towing service. After inspection of the vehicle, Burt found Ficklin's driver's license on the console; the vehicle's OnStar module had been removed. Police advised Ficklin of his Miranda rights' Ficklin confessed verbally he had researched online how to disable an OnStar module from a vehicle. At trial, however, Ficklin changed his story, testiflying someone else stole the vehicle and he only got in for a ride. Ficklin denied ever driving the Rudolph vehicle. Ficklin moved to suppress his confessions, but this was denied, and he was ultimately convicted. Finding no arguable issues in the record, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Ficklin’s conviction and sentence. View "Ficklin v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Antwoine Cork was convicted by jury on three counts of sale of a controlled substance for selling cocaine to a police informant three times. Pursuant to the habitual and subsequent offender sentencing enhancements, the trial judge sentenced him to sixty years for each of the three convictions to run concurrently. On appeal, Cork argued: (1) his convictions for three separate counts of sale of a controlled substance violated the prohibition against double jeopardy; (2) his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment; (3) the trial court misapplied the law when sentencing Cork pursuant to Section 41-29-147; (4) the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion to amend the indictment; (5) the trial court erred by denying Cork’s motion for a continuance; (6) the trial judge should have recused; (7) Cork was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (8) Cork’s convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Cork's convictions and sentence. View "Cork v. Mississippi" on Justia Law