Muise v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00553-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-16-2008 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Murder - Right to speedy trial - Continuance Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, shee, Robertts, and Carlton, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING AND BARNES, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-13-2007 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Stephen Simpson Disposition: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B2402-06-467 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JOHN PETER MUISE |
GLENN F. RISHEL,
LESLIE S. LEE,
JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK,
JOHN WILSON EATON |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS | ||
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 - Right to speedy trial - Continuance |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Muise was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Right to speedy trial Muise argues that the four-hundred-and ninety-six-day delay between his arrest and trial violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The four factors to be considered if the defendant’s right has been violated include length of delay, reason for delay, defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice to the defendant. The record shows that the trial court never ruled on Muise's motion to dismiss for the lack of a speedy trial. Muise did not raise the motion at the pretrial motion hearing. Though a defendant has made a written speedy trial motion, the defendant's failure to bring the motion to the attention of the trial court and request a hearing results in a waiver of the issue for appeal. In addition, though the record shows a substantial, unexplained delay in bringing Muise to trial, no prejudice is apparent from the record. Considering the totality of the circumstances, there was no error so fundamental that it generates a miscarriage of justice. Issue 2: Continuance Muise argues that the denial of a continuance hindered the preparedness of counsel to the degree that it denied him the assistance of constitutionally effective counsel. No manifest injustice resulted from the denial of a continuance, and Muise has not shown a reasonable probability of a different outcome. There is no indication that despite the relatively brief period of time counsel had to prepare for trial, the reasons cited by Muise rendered counsel so unprepared as to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceedings. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
