Dora v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01914-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-01914-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-18-2011 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Simple robbery - Sufficiency of evidence - Plea deal - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, P.J. Concurs in Result Only: Maxwell, J. Procedural History: JNOV Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-18-2008 Appealed from: Noxubee County Circuit Court Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr. Disposition: Convicted of Robbery and Sentenced as a Habitual Offender to Fifteen Years in the Custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, Without Eligibility for Parole or Probation, and to Pay a $10,000 fine Case Number: 08-004 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Trent Dora a/k/a Sub |
LISA MISHUNE ROSS |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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 - Sufficiency of evidence - Plea deal - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Trent Dora was convicted of simple robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender to fifteen years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Dora challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Dora argues that the State failed to prove that he and Winters had made an agreement to rob Black, and the State failed to prove that Winters possessed the intent to rob Black. However, Winters testified that Dora was the mastermind of this scheme. The evidence shows that Winters initially believed that Black was in on the plan, but he soon realized that Black had no idea what was going on and that she was afraid. After realizing that Dora misled him, Winters still decided to stick with the plan, and he took the money. Black testified that she threw the money on the ground because she was in fear for her life. The evidence supports a finding that Winters took money from Black by putting her in fear of immediate injury and that Dora participated in the crime. Issue 2: Plea deal Dora argues that the State hid the fact that Winters was offered a plea deal in exchange for his testimony and therefore, his trial was fundamentally unfair. However, Winters testified that he did not expect to receive a plea deal in exchange for his testimony. Dora’s claim is more appropriate for a motion for post-conviction relief. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Dora argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because his trial counsel failed to request a lesser-included-offense instruction for simple assault. The record on appeal is inadequate to show affirmatively ineffective assistance of counsel of constitutional dimensions. Accordingly, Dora’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is dismissed without prejudice so that he may raise his claim in a properly filed motion for post-conviction relief, if he so chooses. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
