Ravencraft v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-01825-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-12-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder, Grand larceny & Unlawful possession of vehicle - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Weight of evidence 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: 09-19-2007 Appealed from: Amite County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest Johnson Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, MURDER, AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT; COUNT II, GRAND LARCENY, AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN COUNT I; AND COUNT III, UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IMPRISONMENT TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN COUNT II. District Attorney: Ronnie Lee Harper Case Number: 07-KR-013(a) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | BUDDY JOHN RAVENCRAFT |
GEORGE T. HOLMES |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD |
|
|
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: | Murder, Grand larceny & Unlawful possession of vehicle - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Buddy Ravencraft was convicted of murder, grand larceny, and unlawful possession of a motor vehicle. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Ravencraft argues that his attorney was ineffective because he did not object to a portion of the detective’s testimony. However, the detective’s testimony did not prejudice Ravencraft’s defense, and Ravencraft was not prejudiced by the evidence he references. Ravencraft also argues his counsel was ineffective because he failed to request a lesser included instruction for manslaughter. There is a rebuttable presumption that counsel’s decisions are tactical, and this allegation clearly fits within that presumption. Issue 2: Weight of evidence Ravencraft argues the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. There was no testimony that the victim had a weapon, and there was no testimony that Ravencraft had to use deadly force under the circumstances. Thus, there is no merit to this assignment of error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
