Chester v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00366-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-20-2006 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine, Possession of marihuana, & Possession of firearm by felon - Peremptory challenges - Search warrant - Section 41-29-157(a)(3) - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Diaz, Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-12-2005 Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: Chester was convicted of possession of cocaine while in possession of a firearm, possession of marihuana while in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon by a Pike County Circuit Court jury and sentenced to seventeen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 04-323-KB |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kenneth W. Chester a/k/a Kenneth Chester a/k/a Kenny Wayne |
PAUL M. LUCKETT |
||
| 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: | Possession of cocaine, Possession of marihuana, & Possession of firearm by felon - Peremptory challenges - Search warrant - Section 41-29-157(a)(3) - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kenneth Chester was convicted of possession of cocaine while in possession of a firearm, possession of marihuana while in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to seventeen years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Peremptory challenges Chester argues that the State improperly used two of its peremptory challenges against two potential jurors solely based on their race. Chester argues the State only gave a juror’s employment with Sanderson Farm Poultry Plant as its race-neutral reason for striking her which was insufficient. Chester’s argument is not supported by the record which shows that the State originally challenged the juror for cause, because a past incident in a courtroom involving the sentencing of the juror’s husband for a crime showed the juror expressing a distaste for the district attorney’s office in the past. Additionally, there is no mention of the juror’s employment in the State’s reasons for striking her. Dissatisfaction with prosecution or district attorney’s conduct in a past case involving a family member may provide a race-neutral reason for striking a juror. With regard to the second juror, the reason given by the State was that the juror’s workplace was across the street from where Chester lived and the juror lived across the street from Chester’s residence. Where a juror resides can provide a valid race-neutral reason. Issue 2: Search warrant Chester argues that his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because he was not given a copy of the search warrant by officers of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics when they searched his home. While section 41-29-157(a)(3) clearly dictates Chester should have received a copy of the warrant, the failure to follow this procedure has not been held to constitute reversible error or void an otherwise valid search. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Chester argues that his counsel was ineffective by failing to investigate whether a proper search warrant was executed during the search and seizure of Chester’s home and property and by failing to obtain a transcript of a suppression hearing that would have proven such violations occurred. Chester fails to point to any part of the record to substantiate his claim that a suppression hearing was ever held. Claims not supported by the record cannot be considered on direct appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
