Jones v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-02017-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-02017-COA ; 2009-CT-02017-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-30-2011 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Defective indictment - Section 99-19-81 - Amendment of indictment - Section 99-17-15 Judge(s) Concurring: Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Russell, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Maxwell, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-14-2009 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Helfrich Disposition: CONVICTED OF ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers Case Number: 09-135CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Anthony P. Jones a/k/a Anthony Prenell Jones a/k/a Anthony Parnell Jones |
LESLIE S. LEE, ERIN ELIZABETH PRIDGEN |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY JR. | ||
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 - Defective indictment - Section 99-19-81 - Amendment of indictment - Section 99-17-15 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Anthony Jones was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender to twenty-five years without eligibility for parole or probation. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Jones argues that the indictment against him was fatally defective because it contained erroneous information regarding his status as a habitual offender. The pen pack submitted to the trial court reflects three prior felonies committed in Michigan, two of which were cited by the State of Mississippi in the indictment. The indictment erroneously states that Jones was convicted and sentenced on October 7, 2002, for both cause numbers 02-009352-FH-U and 02-010651-FH-R. Jones objected at the sentencing hearing, arguing that he was only prepared to defend against the sentences that occurred on October 7, 2002. His defense was that the two crimes for which he was sentenced on October 7, 2002, arose from the same incident and, thus, did not meet the requirements of section 99-19-81. The trial court continued Jones’s sentencing, giving both parties a week to consider the applicability of the Michigan convictions. At the rescheduled sentencing hearing, the State continued to assert that both offenses were distinct. However, the prosecutor informed the trial court that the date of cause number 02-010651-FH-R was incorrect. The State argued the correct date was November 15, 2002, and it sought to amend the indictment to modify what it deemed a scrivener’s error. The purpose of an indictment is to inform the defendant with some measure of certainty as to the nature of the charges brought against him so that he may have a reasonable opportunity to prepare an effective defense. The failure to cite the correct date in an indictment shall not render the indictment insufficient. Despite the absence of the amendment to the indictment correcting the date, the indictment contained sufficient information for Jones to prepare a defense. The incorrect date amounted to a scrivener’s error. Jones was put on notice by the two cause numbers cited in the indictment of the charges the State intended to use to prove Jones’s habitual-offender status, and the two charges arose from separate incidents. Issue 2: Amendment of indictment Jones argues that the indictment was ineffective because the order amending the indictment was not made part of the record as required by section 99-17-15. Te State is required to make sure that such an order appears in the record and the defense is required to object to the absence of such order if it wishes to preserve this point for appeal. In this case, neither the State nor defense followed through with this requirement. Thus, this issue was not properly preserved for appeal. In addition, the variance in the indictment is one of form only and did not prejudice Jones’s defense or the theory of his case. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
