Hicks v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-01110-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-01110-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-30-2004 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed in part and reversed in part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Felony shoplifting & Receiving stolen property - Continuance Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Irving, Myers and Barnes, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Chandler, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., and Griffis, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-10-2002 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: COUNT I-FELONY SHOPLIFTING: SENTENCED FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC; COUNT II-POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY: SENTENCED FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC; SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 705-02-K |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Vera Hicks a/k/a Vera Rachelle Hicks |
ANTHONY J. BUCKLEY |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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: | Felony shoplifting & Receiving stolen property - Continuance |
| Summary of the Facts: | Vera Hicks was convicted on the charges of felony shoplifting and receiving stolen property. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hicks argues that the court erred in not granting the defendant's request for a continuance as to count two of the indictment as the charge was less than one week old. Unless the court abuses its discretion to the prejudice of the defendant, his actions will not be held in error nor will the denial of a motion for continuance be grounds for reversal unless it is shown to have resulted in manifest injustice. Here, it was a manifest injustice to proceed to trial because Hicks had only been indicted less than twenty days prior to trial and had only received the indictment which included a new charge less than seventy-two hours prior to trial. Furthermore, Hicks was incarcerated and was unable to reach her attorney until the actual morning of the trial. Hicks's attorney had no time to conduct discovery or review any of the matters involving the felony shoplifting charge. Therefore, Hicks's conviction for possession of stolen property is reversed and remanded for a new trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
