Jones v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01845-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01845-COA ; 2010-CT-01845-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-24-2012 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Robbery - Lesser-included-offense instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Fair, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Russell, J., Concurs in Part and in the Result Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-06-2010 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF ROBBERY AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Case Number: 2009-0232 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Latidius Jones a/k/a La Titus Jones a/k/a Latitus Jones |
ERIN E. PRIDGEN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA H. TEDDER |
|
|
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: | Robbery - Lesser-included-offense instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Latidius Jones was convicted of robbery and sentenced to fifteen years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Lesser-included-offense instruction Jones argues that the circuit court erred in refusing to grant a lesser-included-offense instruction on petit larceny. Jones contends that the evidence presented at trial supported such an instruction because he did not use force or violence during the robbery and the victim did not fear that he would harm her. To be entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction, the defendant must point to evidence in the record from which a jury reasonably could find the defendant not guilty of the crime with which the defendant is charged and at the same time find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense. While it is true that the victim did not testify that she was in fear that Jones was going to harm her, there is sufficient evidence of violence to justify the refusal of a petit-larceny instruction. The record shows that the victim physically resisted Jones’s efforts to take the money from the register, but Jones used physical force to overcome her efforts by grabbing her arm with one hand while pushing her back with the other hand. Ultimately, he was able to snatch away from her grip and escape from the store with approximately $220. Jones’s acts of grabbing the victim’s arm, pushing her back, and snatching his wrist from her grip are violent acts which justify the circuit court’s refusal to grant a petit-larceny instruction. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Jones argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because he “opened the door” for testimony concerning Jones’s prior bad acts. Part of Jones’s defense challenged the witnesses’ identification of him as the robber. Jones’s counsel attempted to establish that Jones was not the man who had robbed Kroger by suggesting that two people had recognized Jones as someone who may have been involved in a publicized, but unrelated, kidnapping. During trial, Jones’s counsel asked the two witnesses if they had seen Jones since the day of the robbery. Both responded that they had seen Jones on the news for kidnapping his girlfriend. Defense counsel’s decision to suggest that Jones had been misidentified, as part of Jones’s defense, falls within the ambit of trial strategy and cannot give rise to an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Furthermore, Jones has failed to show how the trial’s outcome would have been different in the absence of his counsel’s questions regarding the kidnapping incident. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
