Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Criminal Law
by
Eric Sharkey was found guilty of two counts of armed robbery and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and received three sentences—fifteen years for each armed robbery and ten years for possession, all to run concurrently. Sharkey appealed his convictions and sentences. Finding no error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sharkey v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

by
Jayvious Johnson was convicted of two counts of capital murder with firearm enhancement, one count of kidnapping with firearm enhancement, and one count of conspiracy. The Mississippi Supreme Court concluded after automatic review that the verdicts were not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and the trial court did not commit reversible error on the evidentiary issues Johnson raised. The Court therefore affirmed Johnson’s convictions. View "Johnson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

by
Timothy Nunn was convicted by jury of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years without the possibility of parole or early release. Nunn appealed when the trial court denied his motion for a new trial. Nunn's appellate attorney found no arguable issue to raise an appeal. Finding no reversible error or issue warranting further briefing, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Nunn's conviction and sentence. View "Nunn v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

by
The State of Arizona and Williams Gaming, Inc. (WMS), a manufacturer of electronic gaming machines, initiated a civil asset forfeiture against money Randy Binning had won, in part, in Tunica, Mississippi, casinos. Binning was indicted in Mississippi for violations of the Mississippi Gaming Control Act. A circuit court in Mississippi, however, dismissed all criminal charges against Binning with prejudice. Despite the dismissal of charges in Mississippi, Arizona continued its prosecution of the civil-forfeiture action. Binning sought a writ of prohibition from the Mississippi Supreme Court, clarifying to the state of Arizona that any further collateral attacks upon the dismissed criminal charges under Mississippi law should have been barred as res judicata. Because Binning failed to provide sufficient authority that a court in Mississippi may issue a writ of prohibition to a court outside of the state, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed denial of the writ. View "Binning v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

by
William Whittaker was convicted of four counts relating to the sexual abuse of his six-year-old daughter, Betty. On appeal, Whittaker claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense attorney did not insist on certain redactions from the recording and transcript of his partial confession, in which Whittaker refused to take a polygraph test and discussed a prior sex-offense conviction. The Mississippi Supreme Court determined the exhibits used at trial were redacted; it appeared Whittaker’s appellate counsel confused them with the unredacted exhibits admitted at the suppression hearing. Whittaker also argued his partial confession should have been suppressed as involuntary, but his theory on appeal was entirely different from the one he advanced at trial and therefore procedurally barred. The Supreme Court, consequentially affirmed Whittaker’s convictions and sentences. View "Whittaker v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

by
In 2001, a jury convicted Winfred Forkner of burglary of a storehouse, for which he was sentenced as a habitual offender to life without the possibility of parole. Forkner filed three prior motions for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) with the Mississippi Supreme Court. His fourth motion, filed January 18, 2018, he argued his conviction and sentence were void and illegal because the indictment had not charged all of the essential elements of the crime of burglary of a storehouse. Specifically, Forkner alleged error concerning the second element of the crime: “in which any goods, merchandise, equipment or valuable thing shall be kept for use, sale, deposit, or transport.” He argued that the indictment did not allege that items were kept in the storehouse “for use, sale, deposit, or transport.” A panel of the Supreme Court granted Forkner's petition and found Forkner's indictment was indeed defective. The State sought an en banc rehearing of the panel’s order. Forkner opposed the State’s motion and filed a Motion to Remand Petitioner to the Wilkinson County Jail and a Petition for Immediate Release. After due consideration, the Supreme Court granted the State’s motion for rehearing, vacated the panel order and dismissed Forkner’s Application for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court. Also, Forkner’s Motion to Remand Petitioner and his Petition for Immediate Release were denied. View "Forkner v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

by
Timothy Ronk was convicted of capital murder and armed robbery for the 2008 stabbing death of Michelle Craite and the intentional arson of where she resided. He was sentenced to death and thirty years in prison, respectively; the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences. Ronk sought post-conviction relief, raising five claims: (1) trial counsel was ineffective; (2) his sentence was disproportionate; (3) Mississippi’s death-penalty statute is unconstitutional; (4) cumulative error requires reversal; and (5) trial counsel failed to preserve the record for review. Finding that Ronk’s claims were either barred or failed to present a substantial showing of the denial of a state or federal right, the Supreme Court denied his motion. View "Ronk v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

by
Lennon Thomas entered a small Hattiesburg, Mississippi convenience store with a bandana covering his face and carrying a gun. Once inside, he ran behind the cashier’s counter where the cashier had returned from a bank run, and was handling the store's money. The cashier’s husband had seen Thomas enter the store and yelled to warn his wife. He also pulled out his own gun in defense. Thomas grabbed the cashier by her neck and stuck his pistol to her head. She pleaded for her life. When her husband ran from the store to seek help, Thomas shot him in the back, dropping him on the concrete parking lot. Thomas then stuck his pistol in the cashier’s back and shot her before fleeing the store. Thomas was quickly captured by police officers in the nearby woods. He was arrested and later convicted of attempted armed robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. Thomas appealed, claiming that because no money was taken from the store, the State failed to prove he had attempted to commit an armed robbery. The Mississippi Supreme Court disagreed, and affirmed Thomas' conviction. View "Thomas v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

by
In 2008, Officer Joe Edney was involved in the arrest of Carlos Williams. Williams alleged that Edney had attempted to stop a vehicle in which Williams had been a passenger. When the vehicle stopped, Williams ran until Edney demanded that he stop. Williams stated that after he surrendered, Edney began screaming at him obscenities, threats, and racial slurs. Williams alleged that Edney then sprayed Williams with mace and kicked and stomped Williams in the face, neck, and shoulder, causing him injuries. Williams sued; the return of service was made in March 2010; by July 2010, Williams applied for default, stating Edney failed to respond to the complaint. The circuit court entered default judgment in November 2010. The case remained stagnant for four and a half years after entry of default. In April 2015, the trial court found Williams failed to notify or name the City of Greenville as a party, and as such, the claims against Edney in his official capacity had to be dismissed. The trial court then awarded damages in favor of Williams against Edney individually. Thereafter, Endey moved for relief from the judgment, contending the final judgment awarding damages, fees and costs was the only notice he received that he had been sued. Further, Edney alleged that the summons and complaint was delivered to another Greenville Police Department employee, and that person's signature, who was not authorized to received service of process for him, appeared on the proof of service. Thus, the default judgment entered against him was void. The court found that Edney’s motion was well-taken and held that the court had not acquired jurisdiction over Edney because of improper service of process. The court ordered the entry of default, the default judgment, and the order of the court awarding damages to be set aside. Counsel for Williams immediately made an ore tenus motion for an additional 120 days within which to serve Edney with a copy of the summons and complaint. The trial court reserved ruling and ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice. At the end of the hearing, counsel for Williams handed a copy of the summons and complaint to Edney. Edney moved to dismiss, arguing the statute of limitations has expired. Williams contended that he should have been allowed to begin the lawsuit anew because he had demonstrated a good-faith effort to serve Edney. Edney appealed the trial court’s holding that Williams had established good cause for his failure to serve process within the statutory time period. The Mississippi Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider in its analysis of good cause Williams’s four-and-a-half-year delay in pursuing this action. Therefore, it reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded this case to the trial court to include the length of delay in its analysis of good cause. View "Edney v. Williams" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Richard Gerald Jordan was sentenced to death following his conviction on charges of kidnapping and murdering Edwina Marter in 1976. In his Second Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, Jordan challenged the Mississippi Department of Corrections’ (MDOC) using midazolam as the first drug in its three-drug lethal-injection protocol. According to Jordan, midazolam did not meet the requirements set forth in Mississippi Code Section 99-19-51(1) (Supp. 2018), which directed MDOC to use “an appropriate anesthetic or sedative” as the first drug. Because Jordan failed to provide sufficient support to warrant an evidentiary hearing, the Mississippi Supreme Court denied his petition. View "Jordan v. Mississippi" on Justia Law