Watkins v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-01122-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-25-2004 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Transfer of controlled substance - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-13-2003 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Robert H. Walker Disposition: COUNT I, TRANSFER OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE; COUNT II, TRANSFER OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. SENTENCE OF 20 YEARS ON EACH COUNT, TO RUN CONCURRENTLY. District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B2401-2002-0881 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Johnny Cornelius Watkins |
JIM DAVIS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Transfer of controlled substance - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Johnny Watkins was convicted of two counts of transfer of a controlled substance. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Watkins argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, because counsel did not make any motions for discovery, failed to request a severance of the two counts against him, failed to file a motion in limine or obtain another ruling to prevent the State from using prior convictions against him as impeachment material, failed to object to a certain statement made by the State during voir dire, failed to object to testimony by a law enforcement officer not based on personal knowledge, and failed to offer any jury instructions. With regard to discovery, Watkins does not address what materials remained unavailable to him for use at trial through some error of his attorney. Counsel cannot be held ineffective for failing to request evidence which does not exist. With regard to severance, there is no evidence to even suggest a basis for severance of the charges. Any motion to do so would have been specious. With regard to his prior convictions, any motion made to exclude reference to prior convictions would have been an empty gesture, merely reminding the court and the State that the Rules of Evidence apply. With regard to the statement during voir dire, the prosecution was not attempting to influence the jury but rather ascertain whether any veniremen held a bias or prejudice against law enforcement. There was no legitimate basis for objection by counsel to this. With regard to the officer’s testimony, nothing he said exceeded the scope of his personal knowledge. With regard to the jury instruction, the evidence in this case would not have supported a peremptory instruction, since the sales of drugs were recorded and an eyewitness testified consistently with the recordings. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
