McCollins v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KP-01236-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-20-2007 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Conspiracy, Burglary of dwelling, Grand larceny & Arson - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Double jeopardy - Excessive sentence - Continuance - Audiotape - Shackling of defendant Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-27-2005 Appealed from: TALLAHATCHIE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, CONSPIRACY, COUNT II, BURGLARY OF A DWELLING, COUNT III, GRAND LARCENY AND COUNT IV, FIRST DEGREE ARSON; SENTENCED TO SERVE FIVE YEARS AS TO COUNT I, CONSPIRACY, TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AS TO COUNT 2, BURGLARY OF A DWELLING, FIVE YEARS AS TO COUNT III, GRAND LARCENY, AND TWENTY YEARS AS TO COUNT IV, FIRST DEGREE ARSON, IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. COUNTS I, II, III, AND IV SHALL ALL BE SERVED CONSECUTIVE TO ONE ANOTHER. District Attorney: JOHN W. CHAMPION Case Number: 2001-3-B-T1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ANTONIO MAURICE PRICE MCCOLLINS |
ANTONIO MAURICE PRICE MCCOLLINS (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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: | Conspiracy, Burglary of dwelling, Grand larceny & Arson - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Double jeopardy - Excessive sentence - Continuance - Audiotape - Shackling of defendant |
| Summary of the Facts: | Antonio McCollins was found guilty of conspiracy, burglary of a dwelling, grand larceny, and first degree arson. He was sentenced to five years for conspiracy, twenty-five years for burglary of a dwelling, five years for grand larceny, and twenty years for first degree arson. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel McCollins argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He has failed to meet his burden on this issue. Issue 2: Double jeopardy McCollins argues that his right to not be subjected to double jeopardy was violated. A single act may be an offense against two statutes; and if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other. This is what happened here. Issue 3: Excessive sentence McCollins argues that his sentence was excessive. However, he cites no authority which bars this issue from review. McCollins also argues that the court erred by giving him a longer sentence than his co-defendants who pled guilty. However, his co-defendants were not convicted of all four counts as he was. Furthermore, McCollins’s sentence on each crime was within the statutory requirements. Issue 4: Continuance McCollins argues that the court erred by failing to grant a continuance the morning of trial and by failing to advise him of his right to represent himself. McCollins attempted to fire counsel the morning of trial. When an accused appears on the morning of trial with a new lawyer and asks for a continuance, the trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying the continuance. With regard to the court failing to advise McCollins of his right to represent himself, the record does not reflect this request nor does McCollins cite any authority on this issue. Issue 5: Audiotape McCollins argues that the court erred by admitting both the transcript and audiotape into evidence. Audiotapes and corresponding transcripts are admissible as long as a substantial predicate is laid and the recording is relevant. Here, a substantial predicate was laid and the recording was relevant. Issue 6: Shackling of defendant McCollins argues that his rights were violated when the court allowed him to be restrained during trial. If a proper showing is made that the defendant may pose a threat to the occupants of the courtroom, then a judge may allow the defendant to be shackled. The judge’s ruling in this case was supported by substantial evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
