Jay v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-KA-01264-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-01264-SCT
Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-29-2009
Opinion Author: Dickinson, J.
Holding: Reversed and remanded
Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of methamphetamine, Possession of marijuana & Possession of alprazolam - Post-trial motions - URCCC 10.05 - M.R.A.P. 4 - Mental competency hearing - URCCC 9.06 - Trial in absentia
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-11-2005
Appealed from: NEWTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Marcus D. Gordon
Disposition: Douglas E. Jay, Jr.,was tried in absentia and convicted on multiple counts of drug possession. He appeals, claiming he was incompetent to stand trial.
District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan
Case Number: 04-CR-0044-NW-G
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: DOUGLAS JAY, JR.




 HENRY PALMER, MARVIN E. WIGGINS, JR.



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE B. 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: Possession of methamphetamine, Possession of marijuana & Possession of alprazolam - Post-trial motions - URCCC 10.05 - M.R.A.P. 4 - Mental competency hearing - URCCC 9.06 - Trial in absentia
    Summary of the Facts: Douglas Jay, Jr.,was tried in absentia and convicted on multiple counts of drug possession. For possession of methamphetamine, Jay was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison and fined $10,000. For possession of marijuana, he was sentenced to six years in prison to run consecutively with the previous sentence. For possession of alprazolam, Jay was sentenced to two years in prison, to run concurrently with the first two sentences. He appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Post-trial motions Jay argues that the trial court erred in not granting his multiple post-trial motions, including his motion for a new trial. Jay’s trial counsel filed a motion for a new trial on April 26, 2005, days after the judgment and sentence were filed. This motion contained nine assignments of error. The trial court neither denied the motion nor held a hearing until June 18, 2008. Jay filed his motion for a new trial within the time prescribed by URCCC 10.05. The rule also provides that the trial judge may hear and determine a motion for a new trial at any time. Clearly, Jay filed his motion for a new trial within the time prescribed by the rule and the judge had discretion to rule on it at any time. Neither M.R.A.P. 4(e) nor URCCC 10.05 requires a motion for new trial (which has been filed) to be timely presented by the defendant to the trial court. Therefore, under the facts of this case, the thirty-day time period to file a notice of appeal began to run on June 18, 2008. Jay filed the current notice of appeal on July 3, 2008, which was within the thirty-day requirement of M.R.A.P. 4. Issue 2: Mental competency hearing Jay argues that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a mental competency hearing to determine his ability to stand trial. In order to be deemed competent to stand trial, a defendant must be one who is able to perceive and understand the nature of the proceedings; who is able to rationally communicate with his attorney about the case; who is able to recall relevant facts; who is able to testify in his own defense if appropriate; and whose ability to satisfy the foregoing criteria is commensurate with the severity of the case. URCCC 9.06 requires a mental examination be conducted when the trial court has reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. Here, the trial court clearly had reasonable grounds to believe Jay was incompetent to stand trial, as evidenced by the order for a psychiatric evaluation. The rule further requires that, following such examination, the court shall hold a competency hearing to determine whether the defendant is competent to stand trial. Furthermore, the rule requires the court to make its finding a matter of record before the case proceeds to trial. Nothing in the record indicates that the trial court ever held a competency hearing or made findings as to Jay’s competency to stand trial. Therefore, the trial court’s failure to hold a competency hearing was a violation of Jay’s constitutional rights and requires reversal. Issue 3: Trial in absentia Jay argues that the trial court acted arbitrarily by conducting the trial in his absence, because the court allowed only a fifteen-minute delay to locate him before the trial was commenced. This issue turns on Jay’s mental competency hearing. Had Jay been found mentally competent, Jay could be tried in absentia, based on his willful, voluntary, and deliberate absence from trial. However, had he been found incompetent to stand trial, the issue would be moot.


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