Jones v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-KA-00202-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-CT-00202-SCT ; 2010-KA-00202-COA ; 2010-CT-00202-SCT ; 2010-CT-00202-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-23-2011
Opinion Author: Carlton, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Aggravated assault - Jurisdiction - M.R.A.P. 2(c) - Prior conviction - URCCC 11.03 - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Ishee and Maxwell, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J.
Dissenting Author : Russell, J.
Dissent Joined By : Irving, P.J.
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-24-2008
Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court
Judge: Al Smith
Disposition: CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PROBATION OR PAROLE
District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen
Case Number: 2007-052-CR2

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Eddie Ray Jones




STAN PERKINS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • 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: Aggravated assault - Jurisdiction - M.R.A.P. 2(c) - Prior conviction - URCCC 11.03 - Sufficiency of evidence

    Summary of the Facts: Eddie Jones was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced as a habitual offender to twenty years. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction The trial court filed its judgment on May 20, 2008. On June 3, 2008, Jones filed a motion for a JNOV, which the trial court denied on June 13, 2008. On June 18, 2008, the trial court filed Jones’s sentencing judgment. On June 30, 2008, Jones filed a motion for a new trial. Then, on July 24, 2008, the trial court filed an amended sentencing judgment. Jones filed his notice of appeal on July 25, 2008. On July 14, 2011, while the case was on appeal, the trial court filed an order denying Jones’s motion for a new trial. Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 2(c), the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals may suspend the requirements or provisions of any of the rules in a particular case on application of a party or on its own motion and may order proceedings in accordance with its direction. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 2(c) and in the interests of expediting justice, the Court will consider the assignments of error raised by Jones in his appeal. Issue 2: Prior conviction Jones argues that the trial court erred by informing the jury during voir dire that Jones had a prior conviction for the sale of cocaine. Jones contends that implicit in URCCC 11.03 is the requirement that a jury not hear the details of a defendant’s prior conviction(s) for fear the information will prejudice the jury. Rule 11.03 is inapplicable to the case at hand. Rule 11.03 speaks to cases involving enhanced punishments for subsequent offenses, which is not at issue in today’s case. Where evidence of a prior conviction is a necessary element of the crime for which the defendant is on trial (i.e., possession of firearm by a convicted felon), but evidence of the specific nature of the crime for which the defendant was previously convicted (i.e., armed robbery), is not an essential element of the crime for which the defendant is on trial, the trial court should accept a defendant's offer to stipulate and grant a limiting instruction. In the present case, Jones was charged with aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Jones had been previously convicted of selling cocaine, a felony. Jones was, therefore, entitled to a stipulation as to his status as a convicted felon. However, the record shows that Jones did not enter into a stipulation as to his prior convictions prior to the commencement of the trial and prior to the time that the trial judge read the indictment to the jury. In fact, the record shows that Jones entered into a stipulation as to his prior felony conviction on the record at the close of the State’s case-in-chief, well past the commencement of the trial and only after the State was required to prove the elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Jones argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support his aggravated-assault conviction and that the trial court erred by denying his request for a peremptory jury instruction as to the sufficiency of the evidence. Jones argues that because he was acquitted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, it logically follows that the jury did not find that he possessed or fired a gun on the day in question; therefore, the jury could only have found him guilty of aiding and abetting in the aggravated assault. A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury purposely, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Here, there was sufficient evidence existed to convict Jones of aggravated assault. An eyewitness testified that through her rear-view mirror, she saw Jones with a gun running behind her vehicle and then shots were fired. The investigator testified that through his investigation, he was able to conclude that Jones and another person would have been shooting east on White Street. The investigator further testified that the victim was traveling west on White Street when a bullet entered her front windshield and struck her.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court