Arrington v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00254-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00254-COA ; 2010-CT-00254-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-15-2011 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Felony escape - Right to testify - Habitual offender status - Section 99-19-81 - Defective indictment Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-17-2009 Appealed from: JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: BILLY JOE LANDRUM Disposition: CONVICTED OF FELONY ESCAPE AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION District Attorney: ANTHONY J. BUCKLEY Case Number: 2008-155-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Clarence Arrington |
HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND 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: | Felony escape - Right to testify - Habitual offender status - Section 99-19-81 - Defective indictment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Clarence Arrington was found of felony escape. Arrington was sentenced as a habitual offender and ordered to serve five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Right to testify Arrington argues that he was denied the right to testify on his own behalf by the trial court and/or his trial counsel. Arrington argues that when his counsel announced that he did not want to testify, the trial court should have questioned him on the record again. Arrington was advised of his right to testify. There is no support for Arrington’s argument that a defendant should be advised of his right to testify every time he or she changes his or her mind on whether to testify. Issue 2: Habitual offender status Arrington argues that the State failed to prove that he was a habitual offender under section 99-19-81, because the State failed to present evidence of his prior crimes during the sentencing hearing. Prior to trial, the State moved to amend the indictment to reflect that Arrington had been convicted of two previous felonies. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court granted the State’s motion. The sentencing orders from the prior crimes were attached to the motion. Arrington argues that it was insufficient that the sentencing orders were attached to the amended indictment. The sentencing orders were included with the amended indictment and were made part of the record on appeal. Even though they were not introduced as exhibits at trial, sufficient evidence was presented to establish Arrington’s two prior convictions. Issue 3: Defective indictment Arrington argues that his indictment was fatally defective. An essential element of Arrington’s crime, felony escape, was that Arrington was in custody for a felony arrest or felony conviction. Arrington argues that the indictment did not make clear that the confinement from which he escaped was for a felony arrest or conviction. All that is required is that the indictment provide a concise and clear statement of the elements of the crimes charged. The indictment clearly states that Arrington “feloniously” escaped. The escape is not felonious unless the charge for which the defendant is in custody is a felony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
