Robinson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00443-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-28-2011 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Felony third-offense domestic violence - Trial in absentia - Section 99-17-9 Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-12-2010 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: Betty W. Sanders Disposition: CONVICTED OF THIRD-OFFENSE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND TO PAY $300 IN ATTORNEY’S FEES AND A $300 BOND FEE District Attorney: Willie Dewayne Richardson Case Number: 2009-0200 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jonathan Robinson |
STAN PERKINS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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: | Felony third-offense domestic violence - Trial in absentia - Section 99-17-9 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jonathan Robinson was convicted in absentia of felony third-offense domestic violence. He was sentenced to ten years and ordered to pay court costs and fees totaling $925. Robinson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Robinson argues that Mississippi jurisprudence has, traditionally and strictly, distinguished between misdemeanor trials conducted in a defendant’s absence and felony trials so conducted, due to the liberty stakes at interest in the latter. He argues that even if the circuit court had the statutory authority to try him in absentia, “the better discretion would have been to have him picked up and tried at a later date.” Robinson further submits that the circuit judge “compounded her indiscretion” by immediately sentencing him “to the maximum even though medical attention was not even required for the alleged victim.” Recently, in Blanchard v. State, 55 So. 3d 1074 (Miss. 2011), the Mississippi Supreme Court applied the current version of section 99-17-9 to facts not unlike those presented here. The supreme court found no plain error with the trial court’s decision to conduct Blanchard’s trial in absentia. Blanchard is somewhat distinguishable from the current case in that Robinson’s trial counsel, unlike Blanchard’s trial counsel, sought a continuance. This, however, is a procedural distinction without a difference in this instance, as Robinson’s counsel’s reason for seeking a continuance was predicated solely on the fact that his client was not present. The circuit court denied counsel’s request and attempted to compel Robinson’s presence. When that failed, the circuit judge proceeded with Robinson’s trial based upon the express findings that Robinson was “clearly aware of the date and time of his trial” and that Robinson’s absence from trial was “willful, voluntary, and deliberate.” The record sufficiently supports the circuit court’s findings. As with the trial itself, a convicted defendant’s presence at sentencing may likewise be waived. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
