Ford v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01124-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-09-2003 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Strong armed robbery - Continuance - Out of court discussion - Disclosure of alibi defense - URCCC 9.05 Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Irving, J., joined by King, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-10-2002 Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: GUILTY OF STRONG-ARMED ROBBERYSENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS. District Attorney: Ken Turner Case Number: 02-CR-035-LE |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jimmy Ford |
WILLIAM MITCHELL MORAN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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: | Strong armed robbery - Continuance - Out of court discussion - Disclosure of alibi defense - URCCC 9.05 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jimmy Ford was convicted of strong armed robbery and sentenced to fifteen years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Continuance Ford argues that the court should have granted a continuance because his attorney had two cases to try the two days preceding Ford's trial. However, there is no evidence in the record of a formal request for a continuance. Matters which do not appear in the record cannot be considered on appeal. Issue 2: Out of court discussion Ford argues that he was prejudiced when the judge spoke to the jury outside of the courtroom. Not only has Ford failed to show any prejudice other than his conviction, but he has also failed to provide any authority in support of his argument. Issue 3: Alibi witness Ford argues that the court erred in ruling that his mother could not testify as to an alibi because the defense failed to disclose the alibi defense. Under URCCC 9.05, the requirement to disclose alibi witnesses must be triggered by the prosecution. Only after the prosecuting attorney makes a written demand is the defendant required to provide a written notice of his intent to offer a defense of alibi. The defendant has ten days to provide this notice along with the requisite information. The record in this case shows no such demand by the prosecution. Considering the fact that only nine days elapsed from the indictment to the trial, it would have been impossible for Ford to comply with the rule. Therefore, the court erred in denying Ford the opportunity to present his alibi witnesses. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
