Hairston v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00422-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00422-COA ; 2010-KA-00422-COA ; 2010-CT-00422-SCT ; 2010-CT-00422-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-30-2011 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Grand larceny - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-02-2010 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr. Disposition: CONVICTED OF GRAND LARCENY AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PROBATION OR PAROLE District Attorney: Forrest Allgood Case Number: 2008-0001-CR1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Tyrone Hairston |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF
LESLIE S. LEE
STEVEN CARL WALLACE |
|
|
| 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: | Grand larceny - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tyrone Hairston was convicted of grand larceny and sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years, without eligibility for probation or parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hairston argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney made improper statements regarding his guilt during closing arguments. Hairston argues that his counsel improperly conceded Hairston’s guilt at trial. While the comments made by Hairston’s attorney may not be considered to be a vigorous defense on Hairston’s behalf, the comments do not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel. Hairston admitted to the police officers at the hotel and later, on the witness stand, that he had taken the victim’s money. Yet he was able during his live testimony to provide his own explanation to the jury as to why he took the money. Thus, it was not improper for Hairston’s attorney to state that Hairston admitted that he had taken the money, as Hairston himself made that same admission on the witness stand. However, Hairston’s attorney failed to support that admission with an explanation and defense as to why Hairston took the money. Nonetheless, Hairston has failed to prove that, but for the attorney’s comments, the outcome of the trial would have been different. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
