Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In August 2023, the Mississippi Supreme Court granted Kelton Hathorne Sr.’s petition for writ of certiorari. Hathorne appealed a circuit court order that denied his motion for post-conviction collateral relief. On appeal, Hathorne argued his indictment was defective because it failed to charge a crime. The Court of Appeals agreed that the indictment was defective; however, it determined Hathorne’s claim was procedurally barred under the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act and, thus, affirmed the circuit court’s order. After review, the Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the judgment of the circuit court and that Hathorne’s claim was not procedurally barred. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Hathorne v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Charlie Harris appealed his life sentence and the trial court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. In 2001, Harris was convicted of depraved heart murder and sentenced to life without parole. His conviction and life-without-parole sentence were affirmed on appeal. The trial court did resentence Harris to life in prison: "It appears that Mr. Harris has been an exemplary prisoner while he was incarcerated. However, the sentence of the [trial] [c]ourt at the time was that of murder. At the time of his sentence, there was no differentiation between depraved heart murder and deliberate design murder. The appellate courts have already addressed this issue and it was not—the sentencing was not retroactive. This court will sentence the Defendant according to the law at the time that he went to trial and was originally sentenced and should be sentenced, in this Court’s estimation. The Defendant will be sentenced to a term of life in prison." In his amended motion for reconsideration, Harris argued his life sentence exceeded the current maximum sentence for a depraved heart murder conviction under the Louisiana legislature’s revisions to the murder statutes. Harris asked the trial court to set aside his life sentence and grant him a new sentencing hearing. The trial court denied the motion. Harris timely appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Harris v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Leslie “Bo” Galloway’s was convicted by jury of the capital murder of Shakeylia Anderson. Galloway’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court on direct appeal. His motion for rehearing was subsequently denied, and he sought relief from the United States Supreme Court by way of a petition for writ of certiorari, which was denied on May 27, 2014. Galloway returned to the Mississippi Supreme Court with a Motion for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court with a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, and his subsequently filed Motion for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court with Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. The Supreme Court treated both filings together as one and referred to it as Galloway’s amended petition for post-conviction relief. Finding no error, the Court denied his amended petition. View "Galloway v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A jury sentenced Stephen Powers to death for the attempted rape and murder of Elizabeth Lafferty. After the Mississippi Supreme Court denied post-conviction relief, Powers sought federal habeas relief at the federal district court. The district court stayed federal habeas proceedings to give the Mississippi courts an opportunity to rule on unexhausted claims. In general, Powers argued: (1) he was mentally incompetent; (2) he was denied his right to a fair, impartial jury; (3) trial counsel was ineffective during jury selection for not challenging the prosecution’s peremptory strikes based on Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); (4) as a matter of federal due process, the attempted-rape evidence was insufficient; (5) trial and post-conviction counsel were ineffective concerning the guilt phase; (6) trial counsel’s “total dereliction” at sentencing requires application of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), not Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); (7) even if Cronic was inapplicable, trial counsel was ineffective under Strickland; and (8) cumulative error. Taking each issue raised under careful consideration, the Mississippi Supreme Court denied Powers' request for postconviction relief. View "Powers v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from the Mississippi Legislature’s passing and the Governor’s signing of House Bill 1020. The catalyst for the Legislature’s passing of House Bill 1020 was described as the “sweltering, undisputed and suffocating” crime problem in Jackson, Mississippi—a problem that has “crippled the criminal justice system.” While political and social controversy surrounded this bill, the bulk of the bill’s provisions, which are aimed at improving public safety and bolstering judicial resources in Jackson, were not at issue. Section 1 of House Bill 1020, directed the Mississippi Supreme Court’s Chief Justice to appoint four additional (and unelected) circuit judges to the existing Seventh Circuit Court District—the district comprised of the City of Jackson and all of Hinds County—for a term ending December 31, 2026. The second challenged provision, Section 4 of House Bill 1020, was a more ambitious endeavor that created a new statutory inferior court, much like a municipal court, to serve the CCID. Petitioners, and Jackson residents, Ann Saunders, Sabreen Sharrief, and Dorothy Triplett (collectively, Saunders) claimed both provisions violated Mississippi’s Constitution. The Hinds County Chancellor J. Dewayne Thomas, who held hearings on Saunders’s challenges, disagreed and dismissed her complaint. Saunders appealed. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with the chancellor that the creation of the CCID inferior court in Section 4 of House Bill 1020 was constitutional. But the Court agreed with Saunders that Section 1’s creation of four new appointed “temporary special circuit judges” in the Seventh Circuit Court District for a specified, almost-four-year term violated the State Constitution’s requirement that circuit judges be elected for a four-year term. View "Saunders, et al. v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Rita Ann Jenkins appealed her conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), third offense. She argued the trial judge erred by granting a jury instruction that eliminated the prosecution’s burden to prove she was “driving in a state of intoxication that lessen[ed] [her] normal ability for clarity and control.” She also argued the trial judge erred by denying a jury instruction that presented her theory of defense. Finding no reversible error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Jenkins’ conviction and sentence. View "Jenkins v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Charles McCollum was convicted by jury on one count of grand larceny for stealing several items from property owned by Brian Mangum. He appealed, claiming the trial court erred by refusing to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his residence, allowing prejudicial hearsay, and denying McCollum’s motion for a mistrial. Finding no error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. View "McCollum v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Joshua Dukes was convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to life without parole in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Dukes appealed, contending: (1) the trial court erred when it allowed the State to rebut Dukes’s alibi witness with a rebuttal witness who had not been disclosed as required by Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.4; (2) his trial was rendered unfair when the State violated the trial court’s order in limine pertaining to his other crimes; and (3) hearsay rendered his trial unfair and denied him due process of law. Finding no reversible error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Dukes’ conviction. View "Dukes v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Larry Stuart was convicted of felony filming a person without her knowledge when she had an expectation of privacy. He was sentenced to serve five years, day for day, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and he was ordered to register as a sex offender. He appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Stuart's conviction. View "Stuart 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