Dismuke v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00146-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-00146-COA ; 2006-CT-00146-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-15-2007 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Grand larceny - Weight of evidence - Continuance - Trial in absentia Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-07-2005 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: CONVICTION OF GRAND LARCENY AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR05-010(PF)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | LEE E. DISMUKE |
MARK ANDREW CLIETT |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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: | Grand larceny - Weight of evidence - Continuance - Trial in absentia |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lee Dismuke was convicted of grand larceny and sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Dismuke argues that the evidence did not establish that he was guilty of grand larceny. Testimony indicated that Dismuke claimed that he was attempting to return the computer for a refund and that he had no receipt. However, the video surveillance footage showed Dismuke place the computer in his shopping cart and it showed Dismuke attempt to leave. A witness testified that he tried to stop Dismuke in the parking lot and that Dismuke fled. Thus, the jury heard ample evidence to convict Dismuke. Issue 2: Continuance Dismuke allegedly attempted to commit suicide by ingesting medicine on the morning of trial. Dismuke’s attorney made a motion for continuance, but the court overruled that motion. Dismuke argues that the court should have granted his motion for a continuance, because he should not have been tried in absentia. Dismuke had actual notice of his trial date and he willfully attempted to avoid trial when he allegedly overdosed on medication. Where a defendant is aware of his trial date yet willfully, voluntarily and deliberately acts to avoid trial, the court may try the defendant in absentia. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
