Shelley v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01284-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-02-2010 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Peremptory challenge - Closing argument Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-18-2008 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Frank G. Vollor Disposition: CONVICTED OF SALE OF COCAINE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH FIFTEEN YEARS TO SERVE AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, WITH THE SENTENCE TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN WARREN COUNTY CAUSE NUMBER 05-0305CRV District Attorney: Richard Earl Smith, Jr. Case Number: 07,0338CRV |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JEFFREY SHELLEY |
ERIN E. PRIDGEN |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA H. TEDDER | ||
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: | Sale of cocaine - Peremptory challenge - Closing argument |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jeffrey Shelley was convicted of sale of cocaine and was sentenced to twenty years, with fifteen years to serve and five years of post-release supervision. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Peremptory challenge Shelley argues that the circuit court erred in allowing the State to proceed with a peremptory strike, because the potential juror had his hair in long braids. A race-neutral reason for a strike can be some aspect of a prospective juror’s appearance not particular to any race, such as wearing a beard or having long, unkempt hair. Issue 2: Closing argument Shelley argues that the court erred in failing to object, sua sponte, to the State’s send-a-message remarks made during closing arguments. Despite the absence of an objection by defense counsel, the issue will not be procedurally barred where the send-a-message argument is so inflammatory that the trial judge should have objected on his own motion. Here, the remarks were clearly improper. The State asked the jury, on multiple occasions, to do their part to get “drugs off the streets.” However, there was no objection, and the remarks were not so inflammatory that the circuit court was required to object sua sponte. Because the evidence against Shelley was overwhelming, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found Shelley guilty, even absent the improper remarks. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
