Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In September, 2007, a grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Defendant Albert Joiner. One count charged Defendant with âfelony flight,â and the second count charged Defendant with being a felon in possession of a deadly weapon. The indictment did not charge Defendant as being a âhabitual offender.â In a separate case, Defendant had a pending indictment for armed robbery as a habitual offender. Defendant and the State reached a plea agreement: the State would dismiss the possession charge and reduce the armed-robbery charge if Defendant would plead guilty to felony flight and robbery as a âlesser habitual offender.â Defendant accepted the deal, pled guilty, and was sentenced to a total of nineteen years as a habitual offender. Defendant moved for post-conviction relief, arguing that the trial court erred by charging him as a habitual offender when the grand juryâs indictment made no mention of it. The trial judge summarily denied his petition, and Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court found that because of Defendantâs âknowing an voluntary guilty plea,â Defendant waived his right to contest any deficiency in the indictment. The Court affirmed the lower courtsâ decisions.

In September, 2008, after a jury trial, Appellant Timmy Harden was convicted of the statutory rape of his stepdaughter. In December, Appellant was sentenced to twenty yearsâ imprisonment, to be followed by ten years of post-release supervision, with five years reporting. Appellant appealed his sentence, arguing among other things, that the trial court should have granted him a continuance in order that he could obtain a mental evaluation to decide whether he was fit to stand trial. Furthermore, Appellant argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him. The Supreme Court was unconvinced that any additional evidence provided at the trial would have reasonably raised doubt as to the Appellantâs competence to stand trial. In addition, the Court found that the evidence did not âpreponderate so heavily against the verdict as to cause an unconscionable injustice.â The Court affirmed Appellantâs conviction and sentence.