Weeks v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-KA-00610-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-11-2007
Opinion Author: IRVING, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Bringing contraband into jail facility - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence
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: 03-22-2006
Appealed from: LEFLORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: W. Ashley Hines
Disposition: CONVICTED OF INTRODUCTION OF CONTRABAND INTO A JAIL FACILITY AND SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
District Attorney: Joyce Ivy Chiles
Case Number: 2005-0229CICR

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: MURRY WEEKS




MURRY WEEKS (PRO SE) W. S. STUCKEY



 

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: Bringing contraband into jail facility - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Murry Weeks was convicted of bringing contraband into a jail facility and was sentenced to seven years. Weeks’ trial counsel filed a brief pursuant to Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 2005), in which he contends that there was no error below.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Weeks seems to suggest that his attorney was ineffective for failing to ask certain questions. However, Weeks fails to assert any authority to support his claim that his attorney’s actions or inactions rise to the level of ineffective assistance. Additionally, Weeks does not enunciate the questions that he claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ask. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Weeks argues that his conviction must be reversed and rendered because the record lacks proof that the jacket in which the marijuana was found belonged to him and not another person. Weeks’s testimony was the complete opposite of the testimony of the corrections’ employees, all of whom denied any knowledge of such a policy. Moreover, Weeks’ testimony on cross-examination contradicted his direct testimony. Further, one of the employees testified that the marijuana was found in the sleeve of the jacket that Weeks was wearing when he returned to the jail.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court