Wallace v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01074-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-05-2007 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Robbery - Competency of defendant - Waiver of right to counsel Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): ROBERTS, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-13-2005 Appealed from: Clarke County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: CONVICTED OF ROBBERY AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER AND SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC WITHOUT REDUCTION OR SUSPENSION AND WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PROBATION, PAROLE, OR EARNED TIME CREDIT AND FINED $10,000. District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 2004-72 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JETHRO WALLACE, JR. A/K/A JETHRO WALLACE |
JAMES N. POTUK |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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: | Robbery - Competency of defendant - Waiver of right to counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jethro Wallace, Jr. was convicted of robbery and was sentenced as a habitual offender to fifteen years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Wallace argues that the judge erred in failing to ensure that Wallace was competent to knowingly and understandingly waive his constitutional right of representation by an attorney. There is no requirement that a trial judge order a competency hearing before a defendant may represent himself. If a trial judge has a reasonable ground to believe that a defendant is incompetent to stand trial, then the court must order a hearing to determine competency. The determination of what is reasonable rests largely within the discretion of the trial judge. In this case, the judge had several opportunities to observe Wallace’s demeanor and behavior, but did not find a reasonable ground to determine that Wallace was incompetent to stand trial. In addition, the record indicates that the trial court complied completely with URCCC 8.05, informing Wallace of every provision listed in the Rule and confirming Wallace’s understanding of each such provision. The court also explained the charges against Wallace and the consequences of a conviction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
