Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Carlos Taylor appealed his sentence of life without parole. On appeal to the Supreme Court, he argued the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Taylor under Miss. Code Ann. Section 99-19-83, because the prosecution failed to prove all essential elements under the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Taylor under Section 99-19-83. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Taylor's sentence. View "Taylor v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Ryan Scott Young appealed his convictions for felony driving under the influence (DUI) third offense, and retaliation against a public servant. On appeal to the Supreme Court he argued: (1) that the indictment did not include an essential element of the crime of retaliation; (2) that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on an essential element of the crime of retaliation; (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict on the DUI charge; and (4) that the verdict on the DUI charge was against the weight of the evidence and he was entitled to a new trial. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded all of Young's arguments were without merit, and affirmed his convictions and sentences. View "Young v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Jermaine Reed was convicted by jury of aggravated assault of his ex-girlfriend. He had been adjudicated a violent habitual offender, and sentenced to life without parole. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. Defendant's appellate counsel filed a "Lindsey" brief, but defendant proceeded pro se. He argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel throughout all stages of his trial; that the trial court erred in denying a pretrial mental health examination; and that the State amended his indictment out of vindictiveness. Finding no error or ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "Reed v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Joe Morgan directly appealed his convictions on murder and manslaughter charges, for which he was sentenced to life and twenty years' incarceration respectively. He challenged the denial of his requested jury instruction on imperfect self defense, and the denial of his motion for a mistrial. Finding no merit to defendant's arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Morgan v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Brett Jones was convicted on murder charges for stabbing his grandfather to death. He was sentenced to life. Defendant was granted leave to apply for post-conviction relief. In his argument to the circuit court, defendant argued that he was fifteen at the time of the murder, and that his sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The circuit court denied relief, and defendant appealed. While defendant's appeal was pending , the United States Supreme Court decided "Miller v. Alabama" (132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)) implicating the issue of whether a life sentence violated a juvenile convicted of homicide's constitutional rights. The Mississippi Supreme Court concluded that "Miller" created a new, substantive rule which would be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals' judgment and the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The Court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded this case to the Circuit Court for a new sentencing hearing. View "Jones v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Melvin Grayer was convicted of burglary and sentenced as a habitual offender to seven years without the possibility of parole or probation. He appealed, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to request a circumstantial-evidence jury instruction and that he was sentenced as a habitual offender without competent evidence of his prior felony convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's conviction but vacated his habitual-offender sentence enhancement, because the State failed to prove defendant was a habitual offender by competent evidence. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "Grayer v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Stanley Gimore was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. He stipulated that he have been convicted of two separate felonies. In appealing his conviction, he raised numerous errors. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the lower court erred in allowing the introduction of admissible evidence as improper impeachment. This error was unduly prejudicial and affected Defendant's substantial rights. Accordingly, the Court reversed Defendant's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Gilmore v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Corey Thompson was convicted on two counts of robbery. The circuit court sentenced him to two concurrent terms of twenty years, with twelve served and eight suspended, and fines and costs. Defendant appealed his conviction. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Thompson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Jimmie Roach filed a motion for post-conviction relief, claiming he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and that a juror at his trial was exposed to extraneous information supplied by law enforcement personnel involved in his case. The motion was denied, and Defendant appealed. Finding no error in the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. View "Roach v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Five years following law enforcement's seizure of three cars and cash belonging to Willie Hampton in conjunction with his arrest, Tunica County's petition for forfeiture was granted. Hampton appealed, arguing that the delay violated his right to a speedy trial. The Court of Appeals remanded, instructing the trial court to establish a record. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Hampton was incarcerated at the time of the forfeiture trial, and was therefore denied an opportunity to present evidence of prejudice. Accordingly, the Court reversed. View "One 1970 Mercury Cougar, VIN #0F9111545940 et. al. v. Tunica County" on Justia Law