Ellis v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-01163-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-01163-COA ; 2006-CT-01163-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-04-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery & Statutory rape - Access to records - Right to confront witnesses - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Independent DNA test - Request for new counsel - Fair jury - Voir dire - Withholding of evidence - Due process rights - Wrongfully obtained evidence - Blood sample 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: 03-23-2005 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: CONVICTED OF SEXUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS, AND CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS, EACH SENTENCE TO RUN CONCURRENTLY, DAY FOR DAY, IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B2401-2004-00374 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | FREDERICK C. ELLIS A/K/A FREDERICK
CHARLES ELLIS |
FREDRICK C. ELLIS (PRO SE),
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
| 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: | Sexual battery & Statutory rape - Access to records - Right to confront witnesses - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Independent DNA test - Request for new counsel - Fair jury - Voir dire - Withholding of evidence - Due process rights - Wrongfully obtained evidence - Blood sample |
| Summary of the Facts: | Frederick Ellis was found guilty of sexual battery and statutory rape. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Access to records Ellis argues that he was denied access to his court records. However, he does not name the documents or otherwise indicate their origin, content, or what effect, if any, they would have had on his preparation for appeal. Thus, there is nothing for the Court to review. Issue 2: Right to confront witnesses Ellis argues that he was denied his right to confront witnesses against him when the State’s DNA expert was allowed to testify on the DNA test administered to him, although she did not directly participate in the testing. However, at the time the expert testified there was no objection voiced based upon an alleged violation of Ellis’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. Therefore, preservation of this issue was waived. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel A reviewing court should not pass on the merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim brought on direct appeal unless the court is satisfied that the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions. There is nothing in the record showing ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions. Issue 4: Independent DNA test Ellis argues that the court erred in failing to order the State to provide the funds for an independent DNA test on the paternity of the victim’s son. Some of the factors a reviewing court should consider when determining if a defendant was denied a fair trial as a result of a trial court’s denial of funds for an expert include whether and to what degree the defendant had access to the State’s experts, whether the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine those experts, and lack of prejudice or incompetence of the State’s experts. The State will not be required to fund DNA testing if the defendant fails to show that it would significantly aid the defense. Ellis fails to provide any reason, unsubstantiated or not, how this would have significantly aided his defense. Issue 5: Request for new counsel Ellis argues the trial court erred in denying his request for new counsel. An accused does not have the right to counsel of his own choosing. The record is bare as to exactly what transpired between Ellis and his attorney prior to trial. However, nothing in the record lends any credence to Ellis’s claims. Issue 6: Fair jury Ellis argues that the jury pool did not represent a fair cross-section of Harrison County. Any claims Ellis may have had regarding the composition of his jury were waived since he raised no objection prior to the jury being sworn in. In addition, Ellis provides absolutely no evidence of the composition of his jury pool, the composition of Harrison County in which to compare, or the composition of other venires drawn from Harrison County. Issue 7: Voir dire Ellis argues that the State made improper comments to the jury during voir dire that prejudiced him. However, he fails to indicate exactly what those comments were or how they prejudiced him. Issue 8: Withholding of evidence Ellis argues that the State withheld evidence concerning an incident that occurred in 1998 that would have been favorable to his case. However, he does not give any indication of exactly what evidence was withheld or how it prejudiced him. The State did question Ellis about the incident during cross-examination, but Ellis’s issue is nonetheless without merit. Ellis waived his right to bring this issue on appeal as no objection was made at the time of trial. Issue 9: Due process rights Ellis argues that his right to due process was violated, as well as his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, when the victim and her sister were questioned during the pretrial investigation regarding Ellis’s alleged sexual battery without Ellis being afforded an opportunity to confront the witnesses. However, Ellis failed to voice an objection at trial concerning an alleged violation of his rights. In addition, the girls testified at Ellis’s trial and were subjected to cross-examination. Issue 10: Wrongfully obtained evidence Ellis argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated as a result of his alleged warrantless arrest and subsequent vehicle search which led law enforcement to discover a gun. This issue was neither objected to prior to trial nor during trial; therefore, it is waived. In addition, Ellis admits that the weapon was never admitted against him or even mentioned at trial. Issue 11: Blood sample Ellis argues that the blood sample taken from him that was used in the subsequent DNA test, which indicated he was the father of the victim’s son, was taken involuntarily. The trial court was not given the opportunity to address the issue as there was no objection as to the voluntariness of the sample made at the time of trial. This issue is waived. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
