Sullinger v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KP-00071-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-00071-SCT ; 2004-KP-00071-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-10-2006 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence - Exculpatory evidence - Discovery - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Appeal counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-02-2003 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: George B. Ready Disposition: CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: CR2002-342-RD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jacob Sullinger |
JACOB SULLINGER (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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: | Manslaughter - Sufficiency of evidence - Exculpatory evidence - Discovery - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Appeal counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jacob Sullinger was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Sullinger argues that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain his conviction. There was testimony that Sullinger and the victim had been arguing, and that the altercation had escalated to physical violence. Although Sullinger attempts to cast doubt on the credibility of several witnesses during his recitation of the facts, all of these credibility issues were brought to the attention of the jury. Considering the evidence, a reasonable jury could have found that all of the elements were proved. Issue 2: Exculpatory evidence Sullinger argues that he was denied his right to a fair trial because the State failed to fully investigate or preserve exculpatory evidence. Sullinger does not allege that any evidence was actually destroyed, accidentally or otherwise but claims that the failure of the State to interview witnesses denied him his right to a fair trial by causing surprise to him. All of the witnesses that Sullinger refers to could have easily been identified with minor effort on the part of Sullinger’s attorney by interviewing the known witnesses who were on the scene. Further, the record indicates that the potential witnesses that Sullinger refers to were not present at the time of the incident; they arrived on the scene later. Thus, it is difficult to understand how these witnesses would have aided in Sullinger’s defense. The record shows that the State did not fail to preserve evidence in this case. Further, there was no unfair surprise to Sullinger resulting from the cross-examination of various witnesses. Issue 3: Discovery Sullinger argues that the State violated Rule 9.04 of Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court by intentionally and deliberately failing to inform Sullinger that the victim’s body had been moved, that the alleged knife had been moved, and by failing to adequately investigate the scene of the crime. None of the State’s actions prejudiced Sullinger’s ability to prepare his defense. The repositioning of the victim’s body, by individuals who were not associated with the State, had no impact whatsoever on Sullinger’s case. Furthermore, Sullinger does not allege any actual prejudicial impact. In addition, law enforcement witnesses were questioned extensively during cross-examination about whether they had found a knife during their investigation, and why they had only retrieved the disputed knife after that investigation. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Sullinger argues that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, because his counsel failed to present evidence that the knife and victim’s body had been moved and failed to present evidence of the police failure to conduct an adequate search of the crime scene. However, this evidence was presented to the jury by Sullinger’s counsel. Testimony at trial clearly indicated that the victim’s body had been moved and that any knife which may have been at the crime scene was not found until later. With regard to the failure to call character witnesses, Sullinger has failed utterly to demonstrate that these witnesses would have changed the outcome in his case. He has presented no evidence, or even argument, indicating how this failure to call character witnesses prejudiced his defense. Sullinger also argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the crime scene before trial and for failing to make a motion to allow the jury to view the crime scene. Counsels’ decision not to ask that the jury be allowed to view the scene fell within the ambit of reasonable trial strategy, and is therefore not sufficient to support a claim of ineffective assistance. Sullinger argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce the tape which Sullinger presented to counsel before trial, demonstrating that the victim’s family had planned to present perjured and false evidence. Not only is this part of counsels’ trial strategy, but this alleged tape was not made a part of the record and is not available for review on appeal. Sullinger argues that his counsel were ineffective for failing to introduce the record of the victim showing that the victim was an alcoholic and prone to violence. This decision falls squarely within the ambit of trial strategy. Additionally, it was brought out through trial testimony that the victim, as well as other key State witnesses, were alcoholics or near-alcoholics. Sullinger also argues that his counsel should have presented more evidence regarding Sullinger’s self-defense claim. However, evidence as to the victim’s intoxicated or hung-over state was presented, and evidence regarding any alleged knife and threatening actions by the victim was produced. Issue 5: Appeal counsel Sullinger argues that he never made an official waiver of appellate counsel on the record. Sullinger is not entitled to relief on this point because he was appointed appeal counsel, whom he later fired. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
