Perkins v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-01135-SCT Linked Case(s): 2001-KA-01135-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-13-2003 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO MODIFY SENTENCING IN COUNTS IIIVIII TO 30 YEARS IN EACH COUNT |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault, Armed robbery, Rape, and Kidnaping - Suppression of evidence - Illegal arrest - Section 99-3-7(1) - Constitutionality of section 97-3-53 - Sufficiency of indictment - Maximum sentence - Sufficiency of evidence - In-court identification - Peremptory challenges - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., McRae and Smith, P.JJ., Waller, Cobb, Easley and Carlson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-20-2001 Appealed from: Warren County Circuit Court Judge: Frank G. Vollor Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault, two counts of armed robbery, rape, and six counts of kidnaping, and was sentenced twice to 35 years for two counts of armed robbery, 35 years for kidnaping, 20 years for aggravated assault, and a life sentence for rape. District Attorney: G. Gilmore Martin Case Number: 99,0282 CR-V |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Romika Perkins |
RAY T. PRICE
JOHN D. SMALLWOOD |
||
| 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: | Aggravated assault, Armed robbery, Rape, and Kidnaping - Suppression of evidence - Illegal arrest - Section 99-3-7(1) - Constitutionality of section 97-3-53 - Sufficiency of indictment - Maximum sentence - Sufficiency of evidence - In-court identification - Peremptory challenges - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Romika Perkins was convicted of aggravated assault, two counts of armed robbery, rape, and six counts of kidnaping. He was sentenced to 35 years on count I, 35 years on count II, 35 years on counts III-VIII, 20 years on count IX and a life sentence on count X. Perkins appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Suppression of evidence Perkins argues that the judge erred by admitting evidence obtained from the car, because the stop was illegal. Section 99-3-7(1) allows an officer to arrest any person without warrant when a felony has been committed, and he has reasonable ground to suspect and believe the person proposed to be arrested to have committed it. Here, the arresting officer stated that he knew that multiple crimes had been committed; the officer had previously reviewed a composite videotape showing a man wearing a distinctive pair of thick gold glasses and using one of the victim’s ATM cards; the officer stated that he was given a description of the car; and the officer knew that the victims had described their assailants as having sideburns and scruffy facial hair. When the officer stopped the vehicle that matched the description given by the victims, he detained the suspect until help arrived. Because the officer had a reasonable belief that a crime had been committed and that the person he had stopped may have committed that crime, any evidence seized as a result was admissible. Issue 2: Constitutionality of section 97-3-53 Perkins argues that the use of the term “kidnaping” to define the criminal offense of kidnaping in section 97-3-53 fails to provide a person with fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and as a result is unconstitutionally vague. The wording of a statute does not necessarily offend the requirements of due process as long as the language provides a sufficient warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices. Perkins has failed to overcome the presumption that the statute is constitutional, particularly since other descriptive words are used in the definition of kidnaping. Issue 3: Sufficiency of indictment Perkins argues that the portion of section 97-3-53 pertaining to the kidnaping of children under the age of ten was absent from Counts VI, VII and VIII of the indictment and that this absence was reversible error. Although the indictment did not repeat the statute verbatim, it was sufficient to inform Perkins of the crimes with which he was accused. Issue 4: Maximum sentence Perkins was charged with six counts of kidnaping. Because the jury found him guilty on each count but could not agree on a penalty of imprisonment, the penalty was affixed by the court which imposed a penalty of 35 years for each kidnaping count. This penalty is in excess of the maximum penalty allowed by section 97-3-53 which provides that the court shall fix the penalty at not less than one year nor more than thirty years in the state penitentiary. The sentencing is reversed and remanded with instructions to modify the sentences to 30 years per count to run consecutively with sentencing on all other counts. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence Perkins argues that the testimony given at trial does not support a conviction of aggravated assault. The State’s evidence clearly showed that the victims of the robbery were put in fear of their lives by the exhibition of a deadly weapon. The perpetrators were armed with a gun and a baseball bat. One of the victims was hit on the head with the bat to the extent that he was unconscious and later disoriented. This was sufficient evidence. Issue 6: In-court identification Perkins argues that the court erred by admitting identification testimony from the victims. An objection must be made with specificity in order to preserve it for appeal. This proposition was not properly preserved at trial specifically in terms of pretrial identification having a deleterious effect on in-court identification. Therefore, the issue has not been preserved for appeal. Issue 7: Peremptory challenges Perkins argues that the State’s exclusions of five African-American jurors were racially based. The reasons provided by the State included having a prior criminal conviction in the juror’s family, falling asleep during voir dire, and knowing the defendant’s family. These reasons were racially neutral. Issue 8: Ineffective assistance of counsel Perkins argues that defense counsel failed to object to the admission of evidence and that defense counsel made a mistake by requesting severance without his knowledge. To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Perkins must show his attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. Perkins fails to support his allegation that counsel made mistakes during trial by requesting severance without his knowledge. With regard to his claim that defense counsel failed to object to the admission of his statement made to the police, defense counsel did object to the admission of the statement and moved to suppress the statement arguing that it was illegally obtained. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
