Leonard v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-KA-02160-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-08-2008
Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Sexual battery - Amendment of indictment - Sufficiency of evidence - Right to speedy trial - Composition of jury
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: 11-06-2006
Appealed from: WINSTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III
Disposition: CONVICTION OF SEXUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIVE YEARS TO SERVE AND TEN YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION.
District Attorney: Doug Evans
Case Number: 2005-0066-CR

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: RANDY LEONARD




RANDY LEONARD (PRO SE), GEORGE T. HOLMES, LESLIE S. LEE



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Supplemental Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY  

    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: Sexual battery - Amendment of indictment - Sufficiency of evidence - Right to speedy trial - Composition of jury

    Summary of the Facts: Randy Leonard was convicted of sexual battery and sentenced to fifteen years with five years to serve and ten years of post-release supervision. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Amendment of indictment Leonard argues that the court erred when it granted the prosecution’s motion to amend the indictment. A change in the indictment is permissible if it does not materially alter facts which are the essence of the offense on the face of the indictment as it originally stood or materially alter a defense to the indictment as it originally stood so as to prejudice the defendant’s case. The court did not err when it granted the prosecution’s motion to amend the indictment to correct the date of the offense, because the amendment did not materially alter any fact that was the essence of the offense on the face of the indictment as it originally stood or materially alter Leonard’s defense so as to prejudice his case. The variance in the indictment and the proof is one of form only. It did not prejudice Leonard’s defense or his theory of the case. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Though Leonard states that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, he does not elaborate as to why he considers the evidence insufficient. A defendant must specifically state just how the prosecution failed to present a prima facie case. Lack of specificity notwithstanding, Leonard’s argument is meritless. The victim testified that Leonard placed his finger inside her vagina and that he did so against her will. Issue 3: Right to speedy trial Because Leonard did not raise this issue before the circuit court, it is procedurally barred. Issue 4: Composition of jury Leonard seems to argue that the circuit court erred when it allowed him to be tried by a jury of more women than men. Leonard did not raise this issue at trial and is procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal.


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