Rogers v. State
Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01790-SCT | |
Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-05-2012 Opinion Author: King, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Statutory rape, Sexual battery & Fondling - Prior bad acts - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-26-2010 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: Appellant was convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to thirty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and convicted of sexual battery and sentenced to thirty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and convicted of fondling and sentenced to fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with two years to serve and thirteen years post-release supervision with five years reporting. With the sentence in Count II shall run concurrently to the sentence in Count I, and the sentence in Count III shall run consecutively to the sentences in Counts I and II. Appellant ordered to pay a fine of $1,000, court costs, $1,000 to the Mississippi Child Victim's Trust Fund and $865 restitution to the Mississippi Crime Victims Compensation Fund, with conditions. Case Number: CR2010-0202CD |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
Appellant: | Jeremy Daniel Rogers, Sr. a/k/a Jeremy Rogers |
OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS, LESLIE S. LEE |
|
|
Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD, 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: | Statutory rape, Sexual battery & Fondling - Prior bad acts - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
Summary of the Facts: | Jeremy Rogers was convicted of statutory rape, sexual battery, and fondling. He was sentenced to thirty years for the statutory-rape conviction and thirty years for the sexual-battery conviction, with the sentences to run concurrently. For the fondling conviction, he was sentenced to fifteen years with two years to serve and thirteen years suspended, with the sentence to run consecutively to the other two sentences. He appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior bad acts Rogers argues that he was denied his right to a fair trial because during cross-examination of Rogers’ wife, his attorney elicited a lengthy story which portrayed Rogers as a “hot-tempered reckless drunk driver, a racist, and a violent wife-beater.” Rogers acknowledges that the evidence at issue was introduced without objection and elicited by Rogers’s trial counsel. A defendant cannot complain of evidence introduced as a result of cross-examination by the defense counsel. Thus, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Rogers argues that his trial counsel’s elicitation of the evidence regarding the prior bad acts, failure to limit the prejudicial statements from the wife, and failure to request a limiting instruction regarding the wife’s statements deprived him of his right to effective assistance of counsel. No evidence supports the argument that Rogers’s trial counsel’s performance was deficient in any manner. Counsel's choice of whether to ask certain questions or make certain objections falls within the realm of trial strategy and does not generally amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. Also, the record indicates a strong likelihood that Rogers would have been convicted even without the statements elicited during cross-examination. The victim testified in detail regarding the sexual abuse, and both her mother and a nurse corroborated her testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court