Peters v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-01169-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-07-2006 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary & Possession of burglary tool - Sufficiency of evidence - Suppression of evidence - Continuance - Recusal of judge Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-14-2004 Appealed from: Walthall County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: CONVICTED ON COUNT I - BURGLARY - SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC, AND ON COUNT II - POSSESSION OF BURGLARY TOOL - SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC, WITH SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 2003-100-B |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Donnifer Peters |
RAYMOND O. BOUTWELL |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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: | Burglary & Possession of burglary tool - Sufficiency of evidence - Suppression of evidence - Continuance - Recusal of judge |
| Summary of the Facts: | Donnifer Peters was convicted on charges of burglary and possession of a burglary tool and was sentenced to consecutive terms of seven years and five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Peters argues that the evidence was insufficient as to the charge of possession of burglary tools, because the crowbar was an ordinary tool that any individual is likely to possess and transport in one’s automobile and the State failed to prove that he intended to use the crowbar for an unlawful purpose. The evidence was more than sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Peters possessed the crowbar knowing of its character, and that he intended to use, or had in fact used the crowbar to burglarize the county property. Issue 2: Suppression of evidence Peters argues that the court erred in denying his motion to exclude the evidence taken from the car and the shoes that were taken from him at the Walthall County Jail. He argues that the sheriff’s department searched the vehicle without probable cause. A search conducted pursuant to voluntary consent obviates the need for either probable cause or a warrant. Such consent may be given by a third party who possessed common authority, mutual use and joint control over property not in the exclusive control or possession of the defendant and where the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Though Peters asserts that the automobile was within his exclusive possession and control at the time of the search, the record does not support this contention; his wife consented to the search some thirty minutes after her husband was taken into custody. With regard to his shoes, it is a long-standing rule that, pursuant to a lawful arrest, law enforcement officials may seize personal effects and clothing from one who has been arrested. Issue 3: Continuance On the day of trial, Peters’ attorney filed a motion for continuance in which he claimed that he had been denied access to Peters on the previous day. The court overruled the motion for continuance, stating that Peters’ counsel had not been diligent in attempting to contact either the court or the sheriff. Peters argues that the court erred in denying the motion for continuance. Though Peters claims that he was deprived of the ability to make final preparations for trial, the record bears out that the trial had been scheduled for a good long while. It is thus apparent that Peters and his attorney had ample time to confer prior to trial. Issue 4: Recusal of judge Just over a month before trial, Peters filed a motion for recusal in which he asserted that the circuit court judge had failed to act with impartiality toward Peters at his arraignment, that the judge had imposed an unreasonable bond amount, and that the judge showed open animosity and prejudice toward Peters. He now argues that the court erred by denying this motion. A judge is required to disqualify himself if a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about his impartiality. Peters is unable to point to any ruling by the trial court that prejudiced his defense. Thus, Peters is unable to overcome the presumption that the trial judge was qualified and unbiased to hear his case. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
