Patterson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01353-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01353-COA ; 2010-CT-01353-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-23-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of controlled substance - Right to speedy trial Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-11-2010 Appealed from: Calhoun County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Elliott Disposition: CONVICTED OF SALE OF COCAINE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH EIGHT YEARS SUSPENDED, TWELVE YEARS TO SERVE, AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION Case Number: CR2008-057 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Roger Patterson |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND | ||
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: | Sale of controlled substance - Right to speedy trial |
| Summary of the Facts: | Roger Patterson was convicted of the sale of a controlled substance (cocaine) and was sentenced to twenty years, with eight years suspended, twelve years to serve, and five years of post-release supervision. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Patterson argues that his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were violated by the amount of time that it took to bring him to trial. Patterson never asserted his speedy-trial rights or raised the issue of his trial date with the circuit court. Patterson’s statutory claim is procedurally barred due to his failure to raise it with the circuit court. With regard to his constitutional claim, Patterson makes blanket assertions of prejudice rather than pointing out any instance of actual prejudice. However, he acknowledges that his claim must constitute plain error to proceed. However, he cites no case for the proposition that delays of any particular length automatically overcome the procedural bar or constitute plain error. Thus, this contention of error is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
