Bright v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KP-00960-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00960-SCT ; 2002-KP-00960-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-24-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Embezzlement - Sufficiency of evidence - Improper sentence - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Improper comment Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Lee, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving and Barnes, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-15-2002 Appealed from: Tunica County Circuit Court Judge: Larry O. Lewis Disposition: EMBEZZLEMENT: SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, THREE YEARS SUSPENDED AND SEVEN TO SERVE, TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO ANY AND ALL PREVIOUS SENTENCES. District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2002-0095 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Simmie Bright, Jr. |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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: | Embezzlement - Sufficiency of evidence - Improper sentence - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Improper comment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Simmie Bright, Jr. was convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to ten years, with three years suspended. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Bright argues that the evidence was insufficient, because the casino cameras failed to show that he left the casino with any money, none of the casino employees actually saw him remove the money from the casino, and the money found in his safe was less than the amount that was short from the casino. At trial, casino employees testified that Bright began his shift with $150,000 in his drawer, that he left his station with six or seven bundles of one hundred dollar bills, that he entered the restroom near his station with the money in a plastic bag inside a black casino bag, that he exited the restroom and then exited the casino, that the black bag was found in the restroom, and that a shortage of $80,000 was discovered when his cash drawer was subsequently opened. Sheriff Department officers testified that they found $60,000 in Bright's safe within his home, and the money was wrapped in Grand Casino money straps. This evidence supported the jury's verdict of embezzlement. Issue 2: Improper sentence Bright argues that a consideration of the circumstances of the offense, the proof offered, and the fact that he had no prior record does not justify the sentence imposed. Sentencing is not subject to appellate review if it is within the limits prescribed by statute. Bright's sentence of ten years was within the statutory allowed amount. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Bright’s assertion his counsel was ineffective is contained in one line of his brief. Because Bright failed to allege with specificity any actions or inactions, on the part of his counsel, that were deficient, he has failed to meet his burden on this issue. Issue 4: Improper comment Bright argues that the prosecution improperly commented on his failure to call a certain witness. When a defendant fails to call a witness more available to him and in a closer relationship to him, the prosecution is allowed to comment on the defendant's failure to call the witness. Viewing the comment in this case in its proper context, it is evident that the prosecutor was not attempting to draw attention to the fact that Bright did not call the witness but was attempting to explain to the court why the elicited testimony was hearsay. Therefore, the prosecutor's comment was not improper. In addition, the comment was not so prejudicial as to deprive Bright of a fair trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
