Foxworth v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00453-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-24-2012 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Additional time to file - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Recanted testimony Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-04-2011 Appealed from: Marion County Circuit Court Judge: Anthony Mozingo Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: 2010-0564 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | L. D. Foxworth |
SCOTT PHILLIPS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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: | Post-conviction relief - Additional time to file - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Recanted testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | L.D. Foxworth was convicted of child molestation and sentenced to fifteen years. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. He subsequently filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed by the circuit court. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Foxworth argues the circuit court erred when it gave the State additional time to file an answer. Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6), Foxworth is obligated to support his contention with authority. Since he failed to do so, there is no merit to his argument. Foxworth also argues that the circuit court erred when it dismissed his PCR motion, because it placed undue emphasis on the fact that the victim had not personally recanted her testimony. Although Foxworth called three witnesses who testified at the PCR evidentiary hearing that they heard the victim recant her trial testimony, there was no direct evidence from the victim that she had done so. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the victim’s adult male relative had recanted his testimony corroborating the victim’s testimony. Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to find that Foxworth had met his burden of proof. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
