Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Christopher Taylor was convicted of one count of burglary and one count of larceny. He appealed his conviction and sentence, raising three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State's impeachment evidence; (2) whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support his convictions; and (3) whether the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Taylor's conviction and sentence. View "Taylor v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Appellant David Javarious Jamison "Jamie" Renfro was convicted of armed robbery. The victim testified that Renfro entered her trailer home and robbed her at gunpoint. A second eyewitness corroborated most of the victim's testimony. The jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict, and Renfro was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with five years suspended. On appeal, Renfro argued that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and therefore, he was entitled to a new trial. Because the Supreme Court found that it was well-supported by the weight of the evidence, the Court upheld the jury's verdict. View "Renfro v.Mississippi" on Justia Law

Derrick Burdette was indicted and tried for the murder of Herman Smith. The jury acquitted him of murder but found him guilty of the lesser offense of manslaughter. Burdette was sentenced to a twenty-year term in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), to run consecutively with a sentence he already was serving for an unrelated offense. On appeal, Burdette argued: (1) that the jury verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and (2) that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated at trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. While the Court found error amounting to the violation of Burdette's right to confront the witnesses against him, the error did not result in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. View "Burdette v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Tyrell Williams was convicted of sexual battery and sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). On appeal, he argued that he did not knowingly waive his constitutional rights, and the trial court therefore erred in denying his motion to suppress his inculpatory statement. Because the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard at the suppression hearing, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new suppression hearing and a new trial. View "Williams v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Rico Veazy and Brandon Mosley were convicted of armed robbery and were sentenced to eight and ten years, respectively, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections after being tried together in circuit court. The robbery involved a vehicle belonging to Veazy but undergoing repairs by mechanic Jimmy Smith, who testified that the vehicle was taken from his repair shop by gunpoint. Finding no merit in any of the defendants' issues raised on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. View "Veazy v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Freddie Webber, Jr., was convicted of the sale or transfer of cocaine and was sentenced as a habitual offender to a term of thirty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) without eligibility for probation or parole. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Webber's conviction and sentence. View "Webber v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Alexander Gardner sued the City of Jackson, alleging that he had suffered a broken leg when one of the City's police officers forced him to sit down while in handcuffs. The City filed for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court. On review of the City's interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, finding that the officer's conduct did not rise to the level of reckless disregard for Gardner's safety and well-being. View "City of Jackson v. Gardner" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Talib Hannah was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent. On appeal, he raised two issues: (1) whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Hannah's "Motion for the State to Disclose the Identity of Its Confidential Informant;" and (2) whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Hannah's motion for continuance. As Hannah's Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process to call a witness was not recognized, the Supreme Court reversed his conviction and sentence and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Hannah v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

In 2010, Edward Daniels was indicted for burglary of a dwelling. The indictment alleged that he broke and entered a dwelling with the intent to commit grand larceny. Later, the State amended the indictment to charge Daniels as a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Section 99-19-83. The trial court granted the amendment and the case went to trial. Because Daniels did not appear for trial, the case was tried in his absence. The jury found Daniels guilty, and the court delayed sentencing until Daniels could be located. The court ultimately sentenced Daniels to life without the possibility of parole under Section 99-19-83. Daniels subsequently filed a motion for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), which the trial court denied. Daniels appealed his conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court denying Daniels's motion for new trial and remanded the case for further proceedings, because the jury instruction on the elements of burglary "was fatally flawed." View "Daniels v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

In 2000, Jay McCalpin pled guilty to one count of fondling and two counts of sexual battery involving a child under the age of fourteen and was sentenced to serve a term of fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), with ten years of his sentence suspended, and five years of post-release supervision upon his release from incarceration. In 2005, the circuit court revoked McCalpin's post-release supervision for the first time due to his failure to reside at the residence given to his supervising officer, failure to notify his supervising officer of at least three changes of residence, and failure of a drug test for marijuana. At that time, the circuit court judge revoked McCalpin's suspended ten-year sentence, ordering McCalpin to serve three years in the custody of the MDOC with seven years to remain suspended, conditioned upon McCalpin's "good behavior and that he does not violate any laws upon his release from custody." After his second release from incarceration, McCalpin's post-release supervision was revoked for a second time. McCalpin filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) which was denied. He appealed the denial of his motion for PCR; the Court of Appeals affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that McCalpin did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in seeking rehearing before the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Court affirmed the appellate court's dismissal of McCalpin's motion for rehearing. View "McCalpin v. Mississippi" on Justia Law