Blanchard v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00312-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-10-2011 Opinion Author: Kitchens, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Trial in absentia - Section 99-17-9 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-19-2010 Appealed from: Monroe County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner, III Disposition: Blanchard was convicted of armed robbery as defined by Mississippi Code Section 97-3-79 (Rev. 2006). The trial court sentenced Blanchard to fifty years' imprisonment and ordered him to pay court costs, fees, restitution, and a fine, totaling $15,822.50. Case Number: CR08-253 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Montae Blanchard |
OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: GEORGE T. HOLMES, LESLIE S. LEE |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN 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: | Armed robbery - Trial in absentia - Section 99-17-9 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Montae Blanchard was convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Trial in absentia An' accused’s right to be present at every stage of his trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 3, Section 26, of the Mississippi Constitution. This right may be waived based on a defendant’s willful, voluntary, and deliberate absence from trial. Section 99-17-9 provides that a trial in absentia may be had where the accused is on recognizance or bail and is in any way in default for nonappearance. Blanchard’s attorney made it clear to the trial court that he was aware of his trial date. Without evidence that Blanchard’s absence from the trial was not willful, voluntary, and deliberate, the trial judge did not commit plain error by conducting the trial in absentia. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Blanchard argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a continuance based on his absence and for failing to object to certain hearsay testimony. Although, in his brief, Blanchard stipulates that the record on direct appeal is adequate, Blanchard’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are best reserved for a potential petition for post-conviction relief. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Blanchard argues that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, because the victims’ descriptions of the robber did not match his physical appearance, his accomplice’s testimony was unreasonable and unreliable, and there was no physical evidence to tie Blanchard to the crime. The only difference between the victims’ physical descriptions of the robber and Blanchard was that the robber had dreadlocks or braids, while Blanchard’s head was shaven. However, the accomplice testified that, at the time of the robbery, Blanchard had dreadlocks. Moreover, an officer testified that he had seen Blanchard roughly a week before the robbery and knew that Blanchard had longer hair which he kept in braids. While there were some inconsistencies in the accomplice’s testimony, it was the jury’s duty to gauge the witness’s credibility. There is no merit in Blanchard’s arguments regarding the weight of the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
