Williams v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-KA-00625-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-20-2011
Opinion Author: Dickinson, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Shooting into dwelling - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Randolph, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-05-2010
Appealed from: Warren County Circuit Court
Judge: James Chaney, Jr
Disposition: Appellant was convicted of shooting into a dwelling.
Case Number: 09,0316CRC

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Algernon Williams




OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: ERIN E. PRIDGEN LESLIE S. LEE



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE SCOTT STUART  

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: Shooting into dwelling - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: Algernon Williams was convicted of shooting into a dwelling. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Williams argues that his trial attorneys rendered ineffective assistance in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by failing to file any post-trial motions or by failing to adequately investigate and subpoena the defense’s only proposed witness sooner. Ineffective-assistance claims generally are reserved for petitions for post-conviction relief because they often rely on materials outside the appellate record. But the Court will consider an ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal if the presented issues are based on facts fully apparent from the record. With regard to Williams’ claim regarding the witness, because neither defense attorney spoke with the witness before the conclusion of trial, the defense’s proffer concerning his expected testimony came entirely from what Williams had told them. Consequently, this claim cannot be analyzed on facts fully apparent from the record. With regard to post-trial motions, the record contains no indication that Williams’s attorney made – or that the trial judge ruled on – any post-trial motions for JNOV or new trial. Williams’s only argument is that a motion for a new trial would have given the trial judge an opportunity to review his denial of Williams’s request for a continuance. Williams offers nothing to suggest that, had his attorneys moved for a new trial and argued the continuance issue again, the trial judge probably would have granted the motion. There is no reason to believe the outcome of this case would have been any different, had Williams’s attorneys filed the post-trial motions at issue.


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