Woodson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2000-KA-00056-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-13-2003 Opinion Author: Irving, J. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Right to speedy trial 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: 05-25-1999 Appealed from: Marshall County Circuit Court Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: DEFENDANT FOUND GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS IN MDOC, ORDERED TO PAY COURT COSTS OF $445 AND RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000 District Attorney: James M. Hood, III Case Number: MK97-132 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Stanley Woodson |
GAIL P. THOMPSON |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Right to speedy trial |
| Summary of the Facts: | Stanley Woodson was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to fifteen years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Woodson argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, because his attorney only gave him short briefings about his case and failed to find pictures or produce witnesses that would have ensured him a fair trial. To prove his claim, he must show his attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. Woodson fails to show that the meetings between him and his counsel were not sufficient to prepare for his trial and to identify what pictures were not retrieved or what witnesses were not subpoenaed. In fact, Woodson's counsel provided effective and adequate representation by putting on evidence that the victim struck Woodson the day before the shooting and caused Woodson to bleed profusely inside his car and that Woodson was afraid for his life when he came to the victim’s job before the shooting. Issue 2: Speedy trial Woodson argues that he was denied the right to a speedy trial. Woodson's speedy trial claim was not preserved for appellate review since this issue was not raised either before trial or in the post-trial/pre-notice of appeal filings. In addition, his claims that he was prejudiced are not persuasive. The evidence, about which Woodson complains he was unable to present, was cumulative to the evidence which he did present. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
