Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Daryl Redd was indicted on two counts of aggravated assault. A jury found Redd guilty of the first count—aggravated assault, causing bodily injury to April Stevenson by shooting her in the leg with a deadly weapon. The jury found Redd not guilty of the second count—aggravated assault, attempting to cause bodily injury to Jordan Gaston by shooting at him with a deadly weapon. Finding no reversible error in the trial court judgments, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Redd's convictions and sentence. View "Redd v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Earl Young was indicted for gratification of lust and was sentenced to fifteen years without the possibility of parole as a habitual offender. The trial court held a sentencing hearing; prior to the hearing, a “Pre-Post Sentence Investigation” report was submitted to the court, containing a section detailing Young’s prior criminal record. The report did not contain any information regarding the length of Young’s prior sentences for these felony convictions or the dates on which the incidents took place. Based on the report, the court found that Young had been convicted of two prior felonies and, therefore, sentenced Young as a habitual offender. On appeal, Young challenged the sufficiency of both the indictment and the evidence presented at sentencing used as grounds for his sentence. The Mississippi Supreme Court found Young's indictment argument was not preserved for appeal: because the indictment was defective as to its form and could have been amended in the trial court, Young’s failure to object at trial waived the issue, and Young was barred from raising it for the first time on appeal. The Court found that the pre-post sentence investigation report only included generalities regarding Young’s alleged prior convictions. It did not specify the statutes under which Young was convicted, the term of any sentences or whether the convictions clearly arose out of separate incidents at different times. "In fact, that information is completely absent from the record in this case." Because the State failed to prove that Young had at least two prior felony convictions that were brought and arose out of separate incidents at different times and that Young was sentenced to separate terms of at least one year for the prior convictions, Young was improperly sentenced as a habitual offender. Therefore, the Court reversed Young’s habitual offender sentence and remanded the case for his resentencing as a nonhabitual offender. View "Young v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Aaron Mitchell shot and killed Marty Moore. Evidence indicated Moore was the initial aggressor, and Mitchell argued that he shot Moore in self-defense. Mitchell moved for the State to produce the autopsy report for Moore’s body. When it became clear that an autopsy report was not forthcoming because an autopsy had not been completed, Mitchell moved for an autopsy to be conducted, but the trial court denied his motion. The State’s representations on whether a partial or preliminary autopsy was performed were unclear and contradictory. Mitchell argued that the lack of autopsy violated his due process right to present a complete defense. Because the record did not contain sufficient information for it to make a determination that reversible error was committed, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Mitchell’s conviction. View "Mitchell v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Amondo Stewart was convicted of “possession of methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance.” On appeal, Stewart argued the trial court erred in admitting evidence that was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment and Miranda rights. The Mississippi Supreme Court found that Stewart failed to raise these arguments at trial court and was now barred from bringing them on appeal. Although, under the doctrine of plain error, the Court found it may evaluate whether a defendant’s substantive or fundamental rights have been affected, Stewart failed to ask the Court for such consideration until his reply brief, after which the State had already raised a waiver argument. Therefore, the Court found that although his arguments were barred, no error plainly appeared in the trial court record. Stewart’s conviction and sentence were thus affirmed. View "Stewart v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Leroy "Lucky" Turner (aka, "Chino") admittedly shot Jeffrey Johnson in the back following a confrontation outside a convenience store. At his trial for aggravated assault, Turner claimed he acted out of fear for himself and his sixteen-year-old nephew. But video surveillance and eyewitness testimony supported the State’s theory that Turner was the aggressor. A jury convicted Turner as charged, for which Turner was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment with three suspended. Turner appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Turner's conviction. View "Turner v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

William Chisholm killed his former girlfriend, Dr. Shauna Witt, by shooting her to death. Dr. Witt had broken up with Chisholm and recently obtained a restraining order against him. She was examining a patient at her optometry office in Starkville, Mississippi when Chisholm barged in. He opened the office’s front door, walked through the hall to an interior exam room, and overpowered Dr. Witt, forcing his way into the exam room. He then pulled out a pistol. Dr. Witt was able to squirm past Chisholm and out of the examination room into the hall. But as she ran for her life, Chisholm opened fire—shooting her in the back and in the back of her head. Eyewitnesses saw the shooting. And surveillance video footage captured the audio of shots being fired. It also showed Chisholm pacing between the optometry office and Wal-Mart Vision Center—with pistol still in hand—immediately after he killed Dr. Witt. A jury convicted Chisholm of capital murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Chisholm appealed his conviction, but finding no reversible error in the trial court proceedings, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Chisholm's conviction and sentence. View "Chisholm v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

In 2017, Officer Latayvin Taylor stopped defendant Dekara Clanton for not having his license plate illuminated. During a subsequent search of Clanton’s vehicle, Officer Taylor found a bag of multicolored pills behind the radio. Clanton was indicted for the intentional possession of a quantity of twenty dosage units but no more than forty dosage units of methamphetamine. Clanton was tried and convicted in late 2019. He was sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) with the potential to be released after eight years and placed on five years of post-release supervision. Clanton appealed his conviction, arguing: (1) the trial court erred by allowing photographs and testimony about money taken from Clanton’s person; (2) the trial court erred by allowing photographs and testimony about marijuana; (3) the trial court erred by allowing Officer Taylor to testify that he thought he found ecstasy in Clanton’s vehicle; (4) the trial court erred by overruling Clanton’s objection to the State’s alleged misstatement of evidence in its closing argument; and (5) the verdict was not supported by the evidence and was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Upon review of the record, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Clanton’s conviction. View "Clanton v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Edward Harvey was indicted for aggravated domestic violence and kidnapping. Following a jury trial, Harvey was convicted of aggravated domestic violence and acquitted of kidnapping. He was sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Harvey appealed his conviction, claiming that the trial court erred by: (1) prohibiting him from presenting relevant defense evidence; and by (2) allowing an improper jury instruction regarding prior-bad- act evidence. After review of the trial court record, the Mississippi Supreme Court found no merit to either issue and affirmed Harvey’s aggravated domestic violence conviction. View "Harvey v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Alberto Garcia confessed to savagely raping a five-year-old girl and leaving her lifeless body, hanged by the neck, in a filthy trailer. He pled guilty to capital murder. And he waived his right to appeal his conviction. He also waived his right to jury sentencing. The trial judge sentenced him to death. Garcia appealed his sentence, and the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. Garcia filed two separate petitions for post-conviction relief (PCR): one with the trial court seeking to set aside his guilty plea; the other with the Supreme Court seeking to set aside his death sentence. The trial court denied Garcia's petition aimed at his guilty plea. The appeal before the Supreme Court here was the trial court's denial of his guilty-plea PCR. In his petition, Garcia contended his mental-health issues—in particular his new- claimed suffering from autism—rendered him incompetent and unable to plead guilty voluntarily. He also suggested his trial counsel was ineffective for not ensuring his psychological expert was sufficiently independent and for encouraging him to plead guilty. Following a hearing, the trial court issued a lengthy order explaining why Garcia had failed to sufficiently show he was entitled to post-conviction relief. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief. View "Garcia v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Martezzarien Welch was convicted by jury of statutory rape. Welch was identified by the victim, and his DNA matched semen found on the victim. On appeal, Welch argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to determine whether Welch’s father’s or great uncle’s DNA may have matched the semen found on the victim. He pointed out that both men were present at the home when the rape occurred. And he argued that because they were all related and shared DNA markers, it was possible that their DNA samples, had they been collected and tested, also would have matched the semen. The Mississippi Supreme Court determined that the record affirmatively showed counsel’s decision not to collect and test Welch’s father’s and great uncle’s DNA was reasonable trial strategy and was not deficient performance. Additionally, Welch was not prejudiced by his counsel’s decision. Therefore, the Court denied his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim with prejudice, and the Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "Welch v. Mississippi" on Justia Law