Sanders v. State
Docket Number: | 2009-KA-00588-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-22-2010 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of building - Continuance - Discovery violation - URCCC 9.04 Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Maxwell, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J., concurs in result only without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-25-2009 Appealed from: MARSHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: CONVICTED OF BURGLARY OF A BUILDING OTHER THAN A DWELLING AND SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND TO PAY A $2,000 FINE District Attorney: Benjamin F. Creekmore Case Number: CR2008-00122A |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
Appellant: | Ronnie Sanders |
BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER |
|
|
Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA LYNN BLOUNT |
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: | Burglary of building - Continuance - Discovery violation - URCCC 9.04 |
Summary of the Facts: | Ronnie Sanders was convicted of burglary of a building other than a dwelling and was sentenced to seven years. He appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In the middle of the second day of trial, Sanders’s co-defendant changed his plea from not guilty to guilty, and the State informed Sanders’s counsel that the co-defendant would testify as a witness for the State. Sanders’s counsel moved the court for a continuance which the court denied. Sanders argues that the State violated the discovery requirements of URCCC 9.04 by failing to disclose the additional witness prior to trial and the court erred in denying his request for a continuance. Although trial courts enjoy a fair amount of discretion in whether to grant or deny a request for a continuance, the plain language of Rule 9.04 indicates that given a violation of the rule during the course of a trial a trial court’s discretion regarding the grant or denial of a continuance is replaced with a singular option that it “shall act,” absent unusual circumstances, according to the requirements of the rule. Given the facts in the record, there was no violation of Rule 9.04. Rule 9.04, as written, is not self-executing. It requires a defendant to make a written request for discovery materials the State may have. Sanders does not provide proof that his trial counsel requested discovery from the State. In addition, Sanders neither argues that the State had knowledge of the co-defendant’s intentions prior to this point in time, nor does he claim that the State did not immediately inform Sanders’s attorney of the development as soon as it became known to the State. Furthermore, the record makes clear that months prior to the trial, Sanders’s attorney had knowledge that the State had approached the co-defendant and offered a deal in exchange for his testimony. It is apparent that Sanders had ample opportunity to prepare to confront the co-defendant’s testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court