Anderson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01586-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-01586-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-09-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault & Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior convictions - Right to speedy trial - Conflict of interest Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-17-2002 Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: CONVICTION OF COUNT I - AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCE OF TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC, AND COUNT II POSSESSION OF A FIREARM AND SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC, WITH THE SENTENCE IN COUNT II TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY WITH THE SENTENCE IN COUNT I. District Attorney: James H. Powell, III Case Number: 10,702 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Earl Anderson a/k/a Earl Lewis Anderson, Jr. |
GRETA REGINA JOHNSON |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN |
|
|
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: | Aggravated assault & Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior convictions - Right to speedy trial - Conflict of interest |
| Summary of the Facts: | Earl Anderson was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of ten and three years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Anderson argues that the evidence of his guilt of aggravated assault was insufficient, because he was not at the restaurant at the time of the shooting. The victim testified that while he was at the restaurant, Anderson approached him and inquired as to the whereabouts of his brother. Anderson soon after pulled a gun in an attempt to rob him, whereupon the gun was discharged. Anderson kept shooting at him stating, “I’m going to kill you.” In an effort to escape, he began to run toward the restaurant’s door, but before he reached it, Anderson shot him in the stomach. The victim also testified that he had no weapon on him during the incident. Additionally, several witnesses not only placed Anderson at the scene of the crime but confirmed that he shot the victim. The evidence presented against Anderson was more than ample to convict him of aggravated assault. Issue 2: Prior convictions Anderson argues that the court erroneously admitted a certified document into evidence to prove that he was a convicted felon without adequately proving that the crimes listed in that document were in fact felonies. To satisfy the convicted felon portion of section 97-37-5, the State introduced a certified copy of Anderson’s Florida criminal conviction report which listed three Florida crimes of which Anderson was allegedly convicted. A review of the Florida statutes listed in the certified criminal conviction report indicates that the crimes listed on Anderson’s criminal report are in fact third degree felonies. While the jury was required to infer that the "F3" designation listed under the "Degree of Crime" heading meant that the crimes were in fact felonies, there is nothing improper about the jury performing this function. The State met its burden of proving, by properly-admitted evidence, that Anderson previously had been convicted of a felony. Issue 3: Right to speedy trial Anderson argues that he was denied his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial. Factors to be considered include length of delay; reason for delay; whether defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial; and whether defendant was prejudiced. The twenty-seven-month delay in this case is presumptively prejudicial. The record shows no reasons for the delay. There is no evidence that Anderson demanded a speedy trial. In addition, there was no prejudice by the delay. Therefore, Anderson was not denied his constitutional right. With regard to his statutory right, even though a clear violation of section 99-17-1 occurred, Anderson waived his right to complain about the denial of his statutory right to a speedy trial since he did not assert his right to a speedy trial until well after the deadline had passed. Issue 4: Conflict of interest Anderson argues that a conflict of interest existed when the district attorney for Holmes County prosecuted this case against him, because the D.A. was appointed in 1981 to represent him on an offense while Anderson was in the military. However, this representation occurred approximately twenty years prior to the prosecution on the present charges, and Anderson has failed to demonstrate how the previous representation allowed the D.A. to obtain confidential information concerning this case. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
