Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2009, Defendant Michael Kelly was charged with reckless driving, found guilty, and fined $114. Arising out of these same facts, a grand jury handed down a two-count indictment against Defendant several months later: count I charged Defendant with the aggravated assault of Tiffany Walker (by hitting Walker while driving his truck); count II charged Defendant with felony malicious mischief for the destruction of an outdoor ice machine. Defendant moved for dismissal of his indictment, asserting his double-jeopardy rights. The trial court denied his motion. Aggrieved, Defendant filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from an Interlocutory Order with the Supreme Court. A three-justice panel of the Court granted Defendant's petition to assess his double jeopardy claim. Finding that reckless driving was not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault for double-jeopardy purposes: "[t]o prove reckless driving, it is not necessary to prove the elements of injury or attempt to injure. Since each of these charges contains separate elements, the prosecution of [Defendant] for aggravated assault does not violate his double-jeopardy rights, and that contention is without merit." View "Kelly v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Arturo Aquirre Moreno filed a motion to proceed in the trial court with his third petition for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court granted him leave to proceed solely on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court held a hearing only on that issue. The Court concluded that it improperly exercised authority to consider Defendant's motion and thus should not have remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Notwithstanding its own error, the Court affirmed the trial court's denial of relief to Defendant on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim: "[t]o reverse based on the procedural error would be futile, as the result is the same: the trial court was the first (and therefore proper court) to pass on the merits of that claim." Further complicating the issues in this case, Defendant also raised double jeopardy and venue claims for the first time on appeal. The Court of Appeals addressed all of Defendant's claims and denied him relief. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court erroneously considered Defendant's double jeopardy and venue claims. The Supreme Court declined review of Defendant's claims. View "Moreno v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Frederick Watts was convicted of felony fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer in a motor vehicle and was sentenced to five years in custody, with two years suspended and three years of post-release supervision. On appeal, he argued that his conviction for felony fleeing subjected him to double jeopardy, because he previously had pled guilty to reckless driving in the Lauderdale County Justice Court. He also argued that the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence. View "Watts v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Damien Anderson (also known as Damien Wise) was convicted of murder arising from the homicide of Darnell “Sporty” Smith. Defendant contended the circuit court erred when it refused to grant a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. He stated that the trial court improperly forced the defense to choose between manslaughter and self-defense instructions. However, because no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. View "Anderson a/k/a Wise v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Deric Bailey was convicted by a jury of deliberate-design murder for which he was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, Defendant's conviction and sentence were reversed by the Court of Appeals and the case was remanded for a new trial. At his second trial, Defendant again was convicted of deliberate-design murder and sentenced to life in prison. The trial court denied his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial, and Defendant timely filed this appeal. Defendant Bailey presented five issues on appeal to the Supreme Court: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying certain jury instructions; (2) whether the trial court erred in excluding from evidence the statement Defendant gave at the time of his arrest; (3) whether the jury selection process was constitutionally infirm under "Batson"; (4) whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to grant a speedy trial; and (5) whether Bailey was deprived of his right to a fair trial, or at the very least, denied his right to a fair and impartial judge. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Defendant's claims were without merit, and affirmed Defendant's conviction and life sentence. View "Bailey v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Gary Lee pled guilty to accessory after the fact to armed robbery in 1982. In 2010, he filed a petition for habeas corpus (post-conviction relief under Mississippi law) at the circuit court. The court denied Defendant's petition, finding it barred by the three-year statute of limitations in Mississippi Code Section 99-39-5(2) (Supp. 2011). Because Defendant's petition fell outside the three-year statute of limitations and because the trial court may dismiss a petition when it plainly appears from the face of the motion that the movant was not entitled to any relief, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Lee v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Edna Mae Sanders of murdering her husband, and she was sentenced to life in prison. The Court of Appeals reversed her conviction and remanded for a new trial based on the trial court's error in denying a "no duty to retreat" jury instruction, and based on an error in suppressing evidence. Defendant threw a pot of hot cooking oil on her husband while he was sleeping, testifying that she threw the oil to protect herself and her children after she had been violently attacked. The State argued on appeal that the Court of Appeals erred when it (1) found that Defendant was entitled to a "no duty to retreat" instruction, because the evidence showed that she reinitiated the attack after the husband had stopped attacking her; (2) incorrectly conflated the applicable statute such that the court "created precedent" for defendants to claim entitlement to the presumption of reasonable fear, even where the person "against whom 'defensive force' was used was a resident of the dwelling"; and (3) improperly invoked plain error to review the exclusion of testimony regarding the husband's alleged sexual molestation of Defendant's daughter. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals' ultimate disposition, and found "no merit" in the State's claims on certiorari. View "Sanders v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant David Trejo's conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, finding the State had violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. The Court held that the arresting officer lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to make the traffic stop that led to the discovery of cocaine; thus, the trial court should have suppressed the cocaine as fruit of the poisonous tree. While in its review the Supreme Court agreed that the officer lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant's vehicle, the Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the stop was reasonable under the "community caretaking" function in "Cady v. Dombrowski." Finding the stop unreasonable under that doctrine too, the Court affirm the Court of Appeals' reversal of Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "Trejo v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

In 2010, sixteen death-sentenced inmates, including Steve Knox (the inmates), filed a complaint in the Chancery Court. The essence of their complaint was that due to defects in both the statutory structure and the performance of the Mississippi Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel (MOCPCC), they were deprived of their right to obtain meaningful state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus review of their convictions and death sentences. The inmates requested injunctive relief against the State due to alleged violations of their rights to competent, appointed, post-conviction counsel. The State moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. After a hearing, the chancery court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint because the inmates' "attack on the death sentences and post-conviction judicial reviews of [their] convictions" was cognizable under the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act (UPCCRA). The chancery court dismissed the complaint. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding the chancery court lacked jurisdiction over the inmates claims because the claims were embraced by the UPCCRA. View "Knox v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Brian Holliman was convicted for killing his wife. He was sentenced to life in prison. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing to the Supreme Court that the prosecutor in his case made an impermissible "golden-rule" argument to the jury and that the trial court failed to instruct the jury to disregard the argument. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that the prosecutor's argument was a blatant violation, and the trial court erred in overruling both objections from Defendant's counsel. The Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Holliman v. Mississippi" on Justia Law