Odom v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00287-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00287-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-19-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Amendment of indictment Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-14-2010 Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: CONVICTED OF ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED, TEN YEARS TO SERVE, AND FIVE YEARS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 09-CR-066-LE-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Brandon Dale Odom |
A. RANDALL HARRIS, EDMUND J. PHILLIPS JR. |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA L. BLOUNT |
|
|
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 - Amendment of indictment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brandon Odom was convicted of armed robbery. He was sentenced to fifteen years, with five years suspended, ten years to serve, and five years of post-release supervision. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The only issue on appeal is whether the trial judge erred when he granted the State’s motion to amend the indictment to identify Dat, rather than Quan, as the owner of the stolen cash. At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, Odom’s attorney moved for a directed verdict. He argued that the indictment was fatally defective because it mistakenly identified Quan as the owner of the stolen cash. The trial judge denied the defense’s motion and, over the defense’s objection, granted the State’s ore tenus motion to amend the indictment. An indictment may be amended to conform to the evidence, so long as the amendment is one of form, not substance, and does not prejudice the defense. There is no error here. The amendment was one of form, not substance, and Odom’s defense was not prejudiced. Odom’s only defense was that he acted under duress and was not affected by the amendment to the indictment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
