Vinzant v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00626-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00626-COA ; 2010-CT-00626-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-07-2012 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary & Larceny - Sufficiency of indictment - Jury instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, P.J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-09-2010 Appealed from: Warren County Circuit Court Judge: James Chaney, Jr. Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, LARCENY OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, AND COUNT II, BURGLARY OF A DWELLING, AND SENTENCED FOR EACH COUNT AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION District Attorney: Richard Earl Smith, Jr. Case Number: 09,0113CRV(C) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | William C. Vinzant |
HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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: | Burglary & Larceny - Sufficiency of indictment - Jury instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Vinzant was convicted of the burglary of his brother’s home and the larceny of his brother’s motor vehicle. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of indictment Vinzant argues that Count I was fatally defective because it failed to charge an essential element of the crime of larceny of a motor vehicle. An indictment must contain the essential elements of the offense charged, sufficient facts to fairly inform the defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and sufficient facts to enable him to plead double jeopardy in the event of a future prosecution for the same offense. Vinzant neither objected to nor challenged the sufficiency of the indictment at trial. In the absence of a timely objection made at trial, a defendant is procedurally barred from asserting the alleged error on appeal. When an accused willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously takes possession of a motor vehicle, he can only deprive the owner of it temporarily or permanently. Consequently, a failure to charge such in an indictment is not a failure to charge an essential element of the felony crime of motor vehicle theft. The indictment against Vinzant was sufficient despite the lack of specificity regarding whether he was charged with permanently or temporarily depriving his brother of his truck. Vinzant also argues the circuit court failed to give proper instructions to the jury on the crime of larceny of a motor vehicle. Specifically, he claims that the prosecution’s jury instruction, which was designated as instruction S-1, did not set out that the crime must be committed “with intent to either permanently or temporarily convert it or to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of possession or ownership.” While the better practice at trial is for the jury to be instructed with language that tracks the indictment, if the instruction fails to contain this language, the instruction is not necessarily fatally defective. Here, the indictment did charge the crime of theft of a motor vehicle, and the jury was properly instructed. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Vinzant argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for burglary of a dwelling, because the State presented only circumstantial evidence that he broke into his brother’s home. A conviction may be had on circumstantial evidence alone. At the time of his arrest, Vinzant was driving his brother’s Tahoe with a loaf of bread allegedly from his brother’s home and with money also identified by the brother as missing from his home. While Vinzant contends that his brother’s girlfriend gave him the bread and the keys and that the money was his, both their testimonies contradict Vinzant’s. It is the jury’s responsibility as fact-finder to resolve conflicting testimony and evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Vinzant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel as a result of his trial attorney’s introduction of Vinzant’s sixteen-year-old conviction for giving false information to a law-enforcement officer and failure to object to the prosecution’s cross-examination regarding the conviction, failure to object to his brother’s hearsay testimony that his son was missing two $100 bills and that Vinzant had a $100 bill, two $20 bills, and a $10 bill in his possession at the time of the arrest, failure to object to improper rebuttal-witness testimony regarding Vinzant’s reputation for untruthfulness, and failure to request a circumstantial-evidence instruction. While challenges to the effectiveness of counsel are more appropriately brought during post-conviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal, an appellate court may address an ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal if the presented issues are based on facts fully apparent from the record. Because Vinzant raises issues that pertain to strategic matters and decisions by his trial attorney that are not readily apparent from the record, his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel will not be addressed on direct appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
