Scott v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-CT-00798-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-KP-00798-COA ; 2002-KP-00798-COA ; 2002-CT-00798-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-15-2008 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. CONVICTION OF ROBBERY AND SENTENCE OF FIFTEEN (15) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Simple robbery - Peremptory challenges - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Peremptory instruction - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Dissenting Author : Graves, J., without separate written opinion. Concurs in Result Only: Diaz, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-06-2001 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Richard W. McKenzie Disposition: Conviction of robbery and sentence of fifteen (15) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers Case Number: 00-172CR |
|
| Note: | This opinion reverses the previous judgment by the Court of Appeals. The COA decision may be viewed at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO42260.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JAMES WESLEY SCOTT |
JAMES WESLEY SCOTT (PRO SE) |
||
| 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: | Simple robbery - Peremptory challenges - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Peremptory instruction - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Scott was convicted of simple robbery. Scott appealed, and the Court of Appeals remanded the matter for a Batson hearing. The judge found that Scott had failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination by the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges and that it was therefore unnecessary for the prosecution to have to assert a racially neutral basis for its use of peremptory challenges. The case was then returned to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | There must be a prima facie showing of discrimination before the party exercising the strike is required to provide an explanation for the basis of the peremptory strike. In this case, Scott’s counsel initially raised a general Batson objection, and requested that the state be required to show racially neutral bases for all of its peremptory strikes against African-Americans. However, once the judge informed counsel of the venire persons who were struck for cause, defense counsel then stated he did not wish to be heard on Batson. Counsel waived his request for a Batson hearing, and declined to assert any facts to support his objection. By declining to assert any specific facts, defense counsel made an unsupported objection, and in doing so, he failed to properly raise a Batson objection. Notwithstanding the procedural bar, Scott asserts no facts that indicate that the Batson objection has merit. Scott also raises the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time in his pro se reply brief. Since Scott provided insufficient, if any, evidence that the Batson objection was valid, he has not met his burden on this issue. Scott argues that the court erred in failing to grant a peremptory instruction. As Scott did not offer a peremptory instruction for the crime of simple robbery, this issue is without merit. Scott argues that the evidence was insufficient. However, there is evidence in the record which is sufficient to support the jury verdict that Scott was guilty of robbery. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
