Roach v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-01244-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-CT-01244-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-07-2006 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Breaking & entering a dwelling - Preliminary hearing - Defective indictment - Right to speedy trial - Prosecutorial misconduct - Weight of evidence - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Habitual offender status - Hearing - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Southwick, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-12-2000 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: James E. Graves, Jr. Disposition: CONVICTED OF BREAKING AND ENTERING OF A DWELLING AND SENTENCED, AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER, TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Rececca Wooten Case Number: 99-385 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Timothy Roach a/k/a Timothy K. Roach |
REBECCA G. TAYLOR |
||
| 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: | Breaking & entering a dwelling - Preliminary hearing - Defective indictment - Right to speedy trial - Prosecutorial misconduct - Weight of evidence - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Habitual offender status - Hearing - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Timothy Roach was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling. He was sentenced as an habitual offender to twenty-five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Preliminary hearing Roach argues that he was illegally detained by the State, because he was not provided with the complaint against him and was also denied a preliminary hearing. The failure to provide a prompt initial appearance does not necessarily entitle a defendant to have his conviction reversed. Roach must prove that his defense was prejudiced by the denial of a preliminary hearing in order to reverse his conviction. Roach has not done so. Issue 2: Defective indictment Roach argues that the indictment was fatally defective because it failed to specifically state where the offense occurred. It is clear from reading the indictment that Roach was informed of the charges against him, including when and where the crime was committed. The failure to list the specific address of the dwelling, when the person from whom the property was taken is named in the indictment, is not error. Issue 3: Right to speedy trial Roach argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated. Roach was arraigned on June 11, 1999, and was not tried until October 12, 2000, well over the 270-day statutory deadline. However, if a defendant fails to raise the statutory right to a speedy trial within 270 days of his arraignment, he acquiesces to the delay. Therefore, his statutory right was not violated. To determine whether his constitutional right was violated, the court considers length of delay, reason for delay, defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. The delay in bringing Roach to trial of over eight months is presumptively prejudicial. There was reason for delay from both Roach and the State. There is no indication that Roach ever filed a motion demanding a speedy trial, only that he filed a motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial prior to trial. Roach does not provide any specific evidence concerning any anxiety he suffered or any specific injury to his ability to prepare his defense. Given these factors, Roach’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. Issue 4: Prosecutorial misconduct Roach argues that he did not receive a fair trial due to the misconduct of the State, i.e., the State erred in failing to provide him with a copy of the original police report but instead provided him with an altered copy. The trial court determined that the alteration made by the prosecutor was the addition of one word “recovered.” The trial court allowed Roach additional time to restructure his cross-examination of the officer who wrote the report. There is no error. Issue 5: Weight of evidence Roach argues that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. An eyewitness saw Roach exit the house, reenter, then exit again carrying a television. The police were notified and were able to apprehend Roach as he was driving away. Roach’s car contained property belonging the victim. This evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. Issue 6: Circumstantial evidence instruction Roach argues that the court erred in refusing to grant his circumstantial evidence jury instruction. Circumstantial evidence instructions are only given when the State is without a confession or eyewitness to the offense charged. Roach was seen by an eyewitness exiting the house with property. Because of the overwhelming direct evidence, this issue is without merit. Issue 7: Habitual offender status Roach argues that he was illegally sentenced as an habitual offender because he was not given a separate trial. However, according to the record, after the jury was excused, the trial court conducted a separate hearing for the State to present evidence of the two prior felony convictions necessary to sentence Roach as an habitual offender. Issue 8: Hearing Roach argues that the court erred in failing to provide him with a hearing on his motion for a new trial. Hearings on a motion for new trial are discretionary with the trial court. Roach gives no reason why the court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a hearing on his motion for a new trial. Issue 9: Ineffective assistance of counsel Roach argues that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel, because his counsel failed to subpoena two of the State’s witnesses and failed to timely perfect the appeal. Since the two witnesses Roach mentions did not testify at trial, Roach’s attorney was not deficient in failing to subpoena these two witnesses. In addition, according to the record, his trial counsel did file a timely notice of appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
