Curry v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-KA-02541-COA
Linked Case(s): 2004-KA02541-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-01-2006
Opinion Author: Ishee, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Sexual battery - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Roberts, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-30-2004
Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court
Judge: Al Smith
Disposition: CONVICTED OF SEXUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS, WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED, IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
District Attorney: LAURENCE Y. MELLEN
Case Number: 2004-082-CR2

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Tramaine Curry




JOHNNIE E. WALLS



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF  

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: Sexual battery - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: Tramaine Curry was convicted of sexual battery and was sentenced to twenty years, with five years suspended. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Curry argues that the critical elements of the crime were so lacking that a reasonable jury could not have found him guilty. The State presented the testimonial evidence of the victim that Curry pulled down his pants, made her get down on her knees, and put his penis in her mouth. The victim’s brother’s version of the events was consistent with that of the victim’s. Therefore, reasonable jurors could have found Curry guilty. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Curry argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney neither fully developed his defense nor properly questioned the key witnesses. Curry has not shown how the outcome of his trial would have been different. Instead, he vaguely asserts that his attorney’s performance was deficient and that he was deprived of a fair trial.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court