Epps v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00139-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00139-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-19-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault - Motion for mental examination - URCCC 9.06 - Closing argument - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-15-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO FORTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 06-0495 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CLARENCE E. EPPS |
THOMAS RICHARD MAYFIELD,
THOMAS E. ROYALS |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DESHUN TERRELL MARTIN |
|
|
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: | Aggravated assault - Motion for mental examination - URCCC 9.06 - Closing argument - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Clarence Epps was found guilty of aggravated assault. Epps’ sentence was enhanced because the victim was over the age of sixty-five at the time of the incident, and Epps was a habitual offender. Epps appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Motion for mental examination Epps argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a mental examination. URCCC 9.06 requires a judge, if he or she has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, to order the defendant to submit to a mental examination by some competent psychiatrist in accordance with section 99-13-11. Epps offered no medical evidence that he was not competent to stand trial. While Epps’ mother did testify that Epps has suffered from psychosis, she did not bring any medical records or documentation to the hearing. The hearing also revealed that, despite suffering from psychological ailments for twenty years, Epps was competent enough to assist his previous counsel with his two prior guilty pleas. Thus, the trial judge’s decision was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Issue 2: Closing argument Epps argues that two statements made by the prosecution resulted in an improper closing argument because he believes both statements were comments on his failure to testify. Epps is procedurally barred from raising this claim because he failed to object. In addition, the prosecutor was asserting that all of the State’s evidence was unrefuted. He did not single out any particular witnesses’ testimony that only Epps could rebut. Thus, the prosecutor was not trying to stress by innuendo the fact that Epps elected not to testify. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Epps argues that his attorneys were ineffective because they failed to properly pursue the insanity defense. Epps’ attorneys’ actions were not reasonable. They did not provide notice of their intention to use the insanity defense, but one of Epps’s attorneys stated on the record a day before trial that the insanity defense was the only defense they had to present to the jury. However, Epps suffered no prejudice because of his attorneys’ actions. He could not fulfill the requirements of M’Naghten because he understood the consequences of his actions when he shot the victim. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
