Fannings v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00112-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-16-2008 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Sufficiency of evidence - Right not to testify - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sentence 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: 11-30-2006 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Elliott Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2006-079CR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JAMES ARTHUR FANNINGS, JR. |
JOHNNIE E. WALLS, JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY | ||
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 - Sufficiency of evidence - Right not to testify - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Fannings, Jr. was convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Fannings argues that a missing person’s investigation turned into a murder case because of the statements of an untrustworthy accomplice, whose testimony at trial that Fannings murdered the victim was unreliable and uncorroborated, except by two jailhouse informants. Fannings also argues that the State cannot even produce any credible, sufficient evidence that a killing even occurred because the victim’s body was never located; thus, no corpus delicti was established. There is sufficient evidence to support Fannings’s conviction of murder. The only eyewitness to the incident testified that Fannings deliberately shot the victim in the head at point-blank range. While the jury was given the option of convicting Fannings of manslaughter or murder, it found evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for murder. Whether a homicide is classified as a murder or manslaughter is ordinarily an inquiry to be made by the jury. Even though the witness stated Fannings and the victim were arguing at the time of the shooting, there was no evidence that this was an intense argument or that the victim had provoked Fannings. This testimony was corroborated by the jailhouse informants, who testified they were not offered any promises in exchange for their testimony against Fannings. Moreover, their testimony provided details that could only have been revealed to them by Fannings. Just because a body has not been recovered does not mean that there is no evidence of a death. A witness who sees the deceased shortly after his death and testifies the deceased is dead can establish evidence of a death. Issue 2: Right not to testify Fannings argues that he was not advised of his right to testify or not. Fannings did not raise this issue before the trial court or in his post-trial motion. Failure to raise an issue before the trial court creates a procedural bar that prohibits review of the issue on appeal. In addition, the record clearly shows that Fannings was clearly advised of his right to testify, or not, by both his defense counsel and the trial judge. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Fannings argues that he received ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, who was different from his counsel on appeal, because he states the jury deliberated approximately sixteen minutes before finding him guilty. The appellate court should only reach the merits of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal if the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, or the parties stipulate that the record is adequate to allow the appellate court to make the finding without consideration of the findings of fact of the trial judge. In the instant case, the parties have not entered into any such stipulation about the record, nor does the record show ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions. In addition, swift jury deliberations equate with ineffective assistance of counsel. A more probable explanation is that the overwhelming weight and sufficiency of the evidence against Fannings, not to mention the fact the defense did not call any witnesses to testify, paired with proper jury instructions, made the jury’s decision clear. Issue 4: Sentence Fannings argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for his conviction of murder. A sentence that does not exceed the maximum period usually will not be disturbed on appeal. Because Fannings was convicted of the violent crime of murder after January 1, 2000, he is not eligible for parole according to section 47-7-3(1)(g). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
