Clayton v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-02210-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-02210-SCT ; 2003-KA-02210-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-20-2006 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Right to speedy trial - Jury instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-09-2003 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Stephen Simpson Disposition: CONVICTED OF ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER. District Attorney: CONO CARANNA Case Number: B2401-02-00156 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jeffer R. Clayton a/k/a Jeffrey Ray Clayton |
LISA D. COLLUMS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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 - Right to speedy trial - Jury instruction - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jeffer Clayton was found guilty of armed robbery. He was sentenced to fifteen years as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Right to speedy trial Clayton argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated and the court should have dismissed the armed robbery charge. Factors to consider in determining if the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated include length of delay, reason for delay, whether defendant has asserted his right, and whether defendant was prejudiced. The delay of over fourteen months between the placement of the detainer and Clayton's trial date was presumptively prejudicial. The evidence of the reason for the delay indicates that the State did nothing to purposely delay Clayton's trial. Rather, the delay was caused by the police department's personnel change, by the district attorney's heavy caseload, and by docket congestion. The docket congestion and any negligence on the part of the State that contributed to the delay in bringing Clayton to trial weighs slightly against the State. Almost one year after his arrest, Clayton filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, or in the alternative, to be tried immediately. The defendant's demand for dismissal or for an instant trial is insufficient to assert the speedy trial right. There was no evidence that any actual prejudice resulted from the delay. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the trial court's conclusion that Clayton's right to a speedy trial was not violated was supported by substantial evidence. Issue 2: Jury instruction Clayton argues that a statement which the bank teller made to the police five days after the robbery was inconsistent with her trial testimony and that he was entitled to an impeachment jury instruction to the effect that her prior inconsistent statement to the police could discredit her trial testimony that she had seen a gun. Because Clayton never requested an impeachment instruction, he did not preserve this issue for appellate review. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Clayton argues that his trial counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient for failure to reassert his right to a speedy trial. If the record cannot support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal and the case is otherwise affirmed, then the appropriate resolution is to deny relief without prejudice to the defendant's right to raise the issue via appropriate post-conviction proceedings. The record reveals no ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions. Relief on this issue is denied without prejudice to Clayton's right to raise it in appropriate post-conviction proceedings. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Clayton argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he exhibited a deadly weapon during the robbery. A reasonable jury could have found from the bank teller's testimony that Clayton exhibited a deadly weapon during the robbery. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
