Hope v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-01156-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-14-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of dwelling - Sufficiency of evidence - Mistrial - Right not to testify Judge(s) Concurring: Kiing, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-30-2007 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF BURGLARY OF A DWELLING AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS, WITH TEN YEARS SUSPENDED AND TEN YEARS TO SERVE FOLLOWED BY FIVE YEARS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AND FIVE YEARS OF UNSUPERVISED POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION District Attorney: Willie Dewayne Richardson Case Number: 2006-0087 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | CLEVELAND HOPE |
FRANK CARLTON |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY | ||
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: | Burglary of dwelling - Sufficiency of evidence - Mistrial - Right not to testify |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cleveland Hope was convicted of burglary of a dwelling. The court sentenced Hope to twenty years with ten years suspended and ten years to serve followed by five years of post-release supervision and five years of unsupervised post-release supervision. Hope appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Hope argues that the evidence is insufficient because the victim could not testify with any certainty that Hope kicked her door in. The victim testified that Hope banged on her door; Hope thought that the car parked in her yard belonged to another man; his behavior and demeanor concerned her enough that she intended to call the police; once she made her intent known, Hope stated “f— the police”; and her exterior door was subsequently kicked in. Additionally, she unequivocally testified that Hope then kicked in her bathroom door. Reasonable jurors could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Hope kicked in the door. Issue 2: Mistrial Hope argues that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial after a witness testified about Hope’s prior conviction. The jury was fully aware that Hope had prior convictions. Hope was charged with burglary and a count of third offense domestic violence. Thus, Hope experienced no prejudice. Issue 3: Right not to testify Hope argues that the court erred by failing to grant a mistrial after an investigator commented on Hope’s refusal to testify. The investigator’s statement was not a comment on Hope’s failure to testify. He was simply explaining why he had been unable to identify and locate the man who was with Hope. What is more, the circuit court later instructed the jury that Hope’s decision not to testify could not be considered as evidence of guilt. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
