Jones v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-KA-00928-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-25-2008
Opinion Author: BARNES, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Burglary of dwelling - Weight of evidence - Continuance
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-07-2006
Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court
Judge: Andrew K. Howorth
Disposition: CONVICTED OF BURGLARY OF A DWELLING AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION
District Attorney: Benjamin F. Creekmore
Case Number: LK-06-109

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: JAMES EARL JONES




HELEN BAGWELL KELLY, ADAM A. PITTMAN



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • 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: Burglary of dwelling - Weight of evidence - Continuance

    Summary of the Facts: James Earl Jones was convicted of burglary of a dwelling. Due to his being a habitual offender, he was sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole or probation. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Weight of evidence Jones argues that the State failed to introduce any direct evidence of his involvement in the burglary of the home, relying solely on circumstantial evidence. Lack of direct evidence is not fatal to the validity of a conviction. A conviction may be had on circumstantial evidence alone. In this case, the primary circumstantial evidence was Jones’s possession of the stolen items. There is undisputed evidence that Jones possessed some of the stolen items on or about two days before the burglary was discovered. Possession of recently stolen property is a circumstance which may be considered by the jury and from which, in the absence of a reasonable explanation, the jury may infer guilt. The State produced evidence, which if believed by the factfinder, showed that Jones possessed all of the larger items which had been stolen, plus the various tools, which were also on the list of stolen items. Jones provided no plausible explanation, thereby strengthening the inference of guilt. Testimony presented at trial places Jones at the scene of the crime during the time period in which the burglary occurred. Thus, the verdict in this case was supported by the evidence. Issue 2: Continuance Jones argues that it was error for the trial court to deny his motion for a continuance the day prior to the trial, because he wanted to hire private counsel and he had inadequate time to prepare for trial. The trial judge noted that Jones should have attempted to find private counsel the moment he learned of his indictment. Jones was aware of the indictment prior to his arraignment. Therefore, Jones had an opportunity, prior to arraignment, to hire outside counsel if he so desired or, alternatively, thoroughly discuss his case and possible witnesses with his attorney.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court