Turner v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-02069-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-02069-COA ; 2005-CT-02069-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-27-2007 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of business - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Continuance - Habitual offender status - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-20-2005 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF BURGLARY OF A BUSINESS AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO SEVEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: JOYCE IVY CHILES Case Number: CR-2005-031 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | LARRY TURNER |
HOWARD Q. DAVIS |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Continuance - Habitual offender status - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Larry Turner was convicted of burglary of a business and sentenced to seven years as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Turner argues that his counsel was ineffective in the way he handled the videotape of the surveillance footage. The record is insufficient to resolve Turner’s claim that his attorney did not review the video prior to cross-examining any of the prosecution’s first three witnesses. Further, counsel for Turner had the option of recalling the prosecution’s witnesses to question them regarding the events depicted on the videotape. Because the state of the record renders it impossible to sufficiently examine Turner’s allegations, Turner may raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a post-conviction relief proceeding, if he so chooses. Issue 2: Continuance Turner argues that the court erred when it did not continue Turner’s trial until counsel for Turner had an opportunity to review the tape. The record is silent as to whether counsel for Turner had an opportunity to review the videotape before the prosecution submitted it. Counsel for Turner did not claim unfair surprise or undue prejudice; nor did he seek a continuance or a mistrial. Turner has therefore waived this issue on appeal. Issue 3: Habitual offender status Turner’s argument that the court erred in sentencing him as a habitual offender is procedurally barred because he fails to cite any authority in support. Issue 4: Weight of evidence Turner argues that no evidence showed that he broke into Supervalu. Supervalu’s video surveillance system showed the glass door as someone broke it and entered the store. It also showed a man in dark clothing entered through the broken glass and filled a white bag with meat. Turner was apprehended within a very short time period afterward. Turner had on dark clothing. Turner also had a white bag full of meat. This evidence supported the verdict. His habitual offender status was proven when the prosecution submitted what was described as “three certified copies of prior sentencing orders.” |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
