Peacock v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-02190-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-20-2007 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Withdrawal of guilty plea - Double jeopardy Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-28-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 04-1-403 CRY |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | KRISTOPHER R. PEACOCK |
THOMAS W. POWELL |
|
|
| 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: | Murder - Withdrawal of guilty plea - Double jeopardy |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kristopher Peacock was convicted of murder and was sentenced to a term of life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Withdrawal of guilty plea Peacock argues that, because a valid guilty plea waives jurisdictional defects in an indictment, the court erred in withdrawing his guilty plea. The court found that the evidence offered for Peacock’s guilt at the plea colloquy was inconsistent with the facts that were charged in the indictment, insomuch as the indictment charged Peacock with shooting into a vehicle, while the evidence offered at the colloquy indicated only that Peacock shot at a vehicle. The court was entitled to set aside Peacock’s guilty plea, as it was still in the same term during which it had accepted Peacock’s plea. Furthermore, although the court was entitled to set aside the plea, the court gave an additional reason for doing so: that the proof offered in support of the plea did not match the facts charged in the indictment. Issue 2: Double jeopardy Peacock argues that he should not have been prosecuted for both shooting into a vehicle and murder, as prosecution for both subjects him to double jeopardy. Where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not. Here, the crimes charged require additional facts separate from each other. Murder, unlike shooting into a vehicle, requires the deliberate killing of an individual. On the other hand, shooting into a vehicle requires only that an individual willfully shoot into or at a vehicle, whereas murder does not require the defendant to have shot into a vehicle. Clearly, the two are distinct crimes that may both be charged. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
