Dorsey v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00336-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-22-2008 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Out of time appeal - M.R.A.P. 4 - M.R.A.P. 2(c) - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-08-2004 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Al Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2003-0055 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | LAKEITH DORSEY |
TOMMY WAYNE DEFER |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER | ||
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: | Armed robbery - Out of time appeal - M.R.A.P. 4 - M.R.A.P. 2(c) - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | LaKeith Dorsey was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to twenty-five years. The trial court granted Dorsey's motion for an out-of-time appeal for good cause shown. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Out of time appeal A trial court has the authority to grant a criminal defendant's motion for an out-of-time appeal if grounds exist and the request is brought under the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act. However, the trial court's authority to grant an out-of-time appeal under the UPCCRA was not implicated here. M.R.A.P. 4(g) provides that the trial court may grant an extension upon motion filed not later than thirty days after the expiration of the prescribed time for taking an appeal. M.R.A.P. 4(h) permits the trial court, for a limited time, to reopen the time for appeal upon a finding that a party entitled to notice of the entry of judgment or order did not receive such notice within twenty-one days of its entry and no party would be prejudiced. A motion pursuant to Rule 4(h) must be made within 180 days of the entry of the judgment or order or within seven days of receipt of notice, whichever is earlier. The trial court granted Dorsey's motion for an out-of-time appeal approximately three years after entry of the order denying Dorsey's post-trial motion. Therefore, the trial court lacked discretion to grant Dorsey's motion for an out-of-time appeal. However, the appellate court may suspend the time requirements for taking a criminal appeal under M.R.A.P. 2(c) in the interest of expediting decision, or for other good cause shown. Dorsey’s attorney was disbarred and suspended from the practice of law for substantially the same conduct as that alleged by Dorsey, specifically, his failure to file a court document pursuant to his agreement with a client. Once Dorsey hired new counsel, that attorney was diligent in prosecuting Dorsey's appeal. Under these circumstances, justice demands that the time for taking an appeal be suspended. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Dorsey argues that there was insufficient evidence identifying him as the perpetrator to enable a reasonable jury to find him guilty of armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. Considering the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was sufficient evidence to enable a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Dorsey committed the acts constituting armed robbery. Two accomplices identified Dorsey as one of the co-participants in the armed robbery. Although Dorsey's identification rested solely upon accomplice testimony, the testimony was reasonable and not improbable or self contradictory and also was not substantially impeached. Thus, there was sufficient evidence establishing each element of armed robbery. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
