Jefferson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KP-01543-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-01543-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-18-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of building other than dwelling - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 97-17-23 - Jury instructions - Ineffective assistance of counsel 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: 08-31-2006 Appealed from: YAZOO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF BURGLARY OF A DWELLING AND SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF $10,000 District Attorney: James H. Powell, III Case Number: 25-9879 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DENNIS JEFFERSON A/K/A DENNIS E.
JEFFERSON |
DENNIS JEFFERSON (PRO SE) |
|
|
| 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 building other than dwelling - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 97-17-23 - Jury instructions - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dennis Jefferson was found guilty of burglary of a building other than a dwelling, sentenced to a term of seven years, and ordered to pay a $10,000 fine, court costs, and attorney’s fees. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Jefferson argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to uphold the jury’s verdict. Jefferson was possibly involved in the attempted theft of a leaf blower, a fishing pole, a bucket, and an extension cord, either directly or indirectly, as an aider and abetter in his capacity as a lookout. From a review of the testimony and pictures in the record, it is clear that the three-car carport from which the items were taken is a freestanding structure, closed in on three sides and entirely open in the front. There was no alleged breaking that took place in the carport. In addition, the owner of the home testified that she believed the shed behind the house was entered, but nothing was missing. Based on the pictures in evidence, it is clear that the shed is not attached to the dwelling house in any way. The owner did not directly testify, or insinuate, that the shed’s door was manipulated in order to gain entry to the shed. In fact, there was absolutely no testimony or other evidence that the shed was broken into at all. Therefore, it is clear there was a theft from an open, freestanding structure, and a possible entry of a freestanding shed. Neither of these events satisfy the elements of section 97-17-23. In addition to the lack of evidence of a breaking into the shed, it does not meet the statutory definition of “dwelling house,” but it is more akin to a non-dwelling house. Also, there was no breaking and entering involved in the open carport. Based on the evidence presented at trial, Jefferson could not be guilty of violating the statute under which he was indicted. Implicit in every conviction of burglary, however, is a finding that the defendant committed a trespass. The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to uphold a finding of guilty upon a charge of trespass. Therefore, based upon the direct remand rule, Jefferson’s conviction of burglary of a dwelling is reversed and the case is remanded for resentencing for willful trespass. Issue 2: Jury instructions Jefferson argues that allowing jury instructions six and seven was error. Jefferson’s trial counsel’s failure to object to the offered instructions constitutes waiver of that issue on appeal. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Jefferson argues that his attorney was constitutionally ineffective in failing to request lesser-included offense jury instructions for accessory-after-the-fact, attempted petit larceny, and/or trespassing. Since it is not affirmatively shown from the record alone that Jefferson’s counsel was ineffective for the reasons put forth by Jefferson, this issue is dismissed without prejudice. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
