Sharkey v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00020-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-00020-COA ; 2002-CT-00020-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-13-2003 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Reasonable doubt instruction Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., 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: 09-11-2001 Appealed from: Attala County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: CONVICTED OF ARMED ROBBERY. SENTENCED TO SERVE 30 YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2001-0004-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Dannie Ray Sharkey |
IMHOTEP ALKEBU-LAN
CHOKWE LUMUMBA |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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 robbery - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Reasonable doubt instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dannie Sharkey was convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced to thirty years as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Sharkey argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, because his counsel failed to subpoena a particular witness that Sharkey now contends had evidence crucial to his defense and failed to request a circumstantial evidence jury instruction. To prove his claim, he must show his attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. An allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to properly prepare must state how any additional investigation, such as interviewing witnesses or investigating facts, would have significantly aided the defense during the course of the trial. The record fails to show what specific evidence the witness could give relevant to the defense. In order to fully explore Sharkey’s claim, it would be necessary to consider matters not in this record. Therefore, his claim is denied without prejudice. With regard to the circumstantial evidence instruction, the evidence must be wholly circumstantial to warrant such an instruction. Because there was eyewitness identification, Sharkey was not entitled to a circumstantial evidence instruction and his counsel was not ineffective for failing to request the instruction. Issue 2: Reasonable doubt instruction Sharkey argues that the court erred in denying his requested reasonable doubt instruction. The court may properly refuse an instruction if the matter addressed is fairly covered elsewhere in the instructions. In this case, the court gave two instructions which adequately informed the jury as to the proper standard by which to determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
