Jones v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-01856-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-KA-01856-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-08-2004 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of business – Conflict of loyalty – Lesser-included offense instruction – Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-14-2001 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Al Smith Disposition: BURGLARY OF A BUILDING: SENTENCED TO SERVE SEVEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER. THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IN THIS CAUSE SHALL RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO ANY AND ALL SENTENCES PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED. Case Number: 2001-100-CR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Dexter Jones |
RAYMOND L. WONG |
||
| 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: | Burglary of business – Conflict of loyalty – Lesser-included offense instruction – Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dexter Jones was convicted of the burglary of a check-cashing business. He was sentenced to seven years. Jones appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Conflict of loyalty Jones’s attorney represented both Jones and his co-defendant at their preliminary hearings. The co-defendant later became a witness for the State in the trial against Jones. Jones argues that this caused a conflict of loyalty. To demonstrate a violation of his sixth amendment rights, a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance. Since Jones did not establish an actual conflict, but merely the possibility of one, there was no conflict of loyalty. Issue 2: Lesser-included offense instruction Jones argues that the court should have given instructions to the jury concerning the lesser-included offense of trespass. In order for a lesser-included offense instruction to be granted, the judge must be able to say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the accused, that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty of the lesser- included offense and conversely not guilty of at least one element of the principal charge. Jones says he did not touch anything while in the building and did not open the door to enter. The overwhelming amount of evidence presented showed that Jones could not have been telling the truth. According to the co-defendant, the scene was so dark that they could not see, and had to feel around. It is highly unlikely that Jones could have seen that the door was open. Also, the door was an automatic closing door which would not remain open. Therefore, he must have used some force, no matter how slight, to enter the building. A reasonable jury could not look at this evidence and find Jones guilty of trespass, but not of burglary. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Jones argues that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. However, there was overwhelming evidence for a jury to find Jones guilty. The evidence showed that Jones, with the co-defendant, pried open the door to the store. Jones’s fingerprints were found on many items in the store, including the safe and the phone boxes. In addition, Jones’s co-defendant implicated him. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
