McCline v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00921-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-00921-COA ; 2002-CT-00921-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-20-2003 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed carjacking, Armed robbery & Conspiracy to commit armed robbery - Double jeopardy - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Excessive sentence - Appointment of defense counsel Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-03-2001 Appealed from: Sunflower County Circuit Court Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: CONVICTION COUNT I-ARMED CARJACKING, COUNT II-ARMED ROBBERY COUNT III-CONSPIRACY; SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS ON COUNT I, FORTY-FIVE YEARS ON COUNT II, AND FIVE YEARS ON COUNT III, ALL SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Frank Carlton Case Number: 2000-0223 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Terry C. McCline |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
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: | Armed carjacking, Armed robbery & Conspiracy to commit armed robbery - Double jeopardy - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Excessive sentence - Appointment of defense counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Terry McCline was convicted of armed carjacking, armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Double jeopardy McCline argues that he was subjected to double jeopardy, because armed robbery and armed carjacking are predecessors and require proof of each other in order to be established. To determine whether two charges actually comprise only one actual crime, the "same elements" test is applied to determine whether each offense requires proof of some element not contained in the other. While armed carjacking and armed robbery contain overlapping elements, i.e., both require the removal of another's property through the use, threatened use or display of a weapon, no double jeopardy exists if each offense contains an element not contained in the other. The offense of armed carjacking required that the State prove that McCline took a motor vehicle while utilizing a weapon. The armed robbery for which McCline was convicted was the taking of money from the occupants of the truck, not for the taking of the vehicle itself. Therefore, proof supported that McCline committed two different crimes. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel McCline argues that he was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to object to double jeopardy and to the State's findings of fact which noted the robbery and carjacking occurred in 2001, rather than in 2000. To prove his claim, he must show his attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. With regard to double jeopardy, counsel will not be held ineffective for declining to make a spurious legal argument. With regard to his other claim, McCline does not say how he was prejudiced. Issue 3: Excessive sentence McCline argues that the sentences he received are excessive because they aggregate to a term greater than his life expectancy and were far in excess of what his co-indictees received. Generally, a sentence which falls within the permissible range designated by statute will not be disturbed. Each of the sentences McCline received was within the statutory limits and while severe, are not excessive. Issue 4: Appointment of counsel McCline argues that there is no official record to show that defense counsel was properly appointed to represent McCline. McCline does not explain how the absence of an appointment order from the record has prejudiced him nor does he cite any authority to support his position. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
