Jenkins v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00394-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00394-SCT ; 2002-CT-00394-SCT ; 2002-CT-00394-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-02-2003 Opinion Author: King, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Escape - Defective indictment - UCCCR 7.06 - Section 97-9-45 - Jury instructions - Speedy trial right - Right to be heard Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-08-2002 Appealed from: Oktibbeha County Circuit Court Judge: John M. Montgomery Disposition: ESCAPE- SENTENCE TO SERVE A TERM OF FIVE YEARS IN THE MDOC. SENTENCE TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY WITH ANY OTHER SENTENCE. District Attorney: Forrest Allgood Case Number: 99-191-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Shannon Jenkins a/k/a Slink |
PRO SE
HARVEY LEE MORRISON
JOSEPH JOSHUA STEVENS |
||
| 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: | Escape - Defective indictment - UCCCR 7.06 - Section 97-9-45 - Jury instructions - Speedy trial right - Right to be heard |
| Summary of the Facts: | Shannon Jenkins was convicted of escape and was sentenced to five years. Jenkins appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Jenkins argues that the court erred in allowing him to stand trial on an indictment which was void for failure to reference the specific statute upon which it was brought. UCCCR 7.06 does not mandate that the indictment reference a particular section of the Mississippi Code but does require that the defendant be informed of the nature of the charge and of the facts upon which it is based. The indictment in this case charged that Jenkins unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously escaped from the custody of the Oktibbeha County Jail where he had been confined by virtue of a conviction for the felony of vehicular manslaughter. Under section 97-9-45, the State was required to prove that Jenkins was sentenced to the Mississippi Department of Corrections for any term; that Jenkins escaped or attempted to escape from his particular unit or camp of confinement or the boundaries of the penitentiary; or that Jenkins escaped or attempted to escape before confinement. Jenkins was adequately informed by the indictment of the nature of the charge against him and the supporting facts. Issue 2: Jury instructions Jenkins argues that the court erred by granting certain jury instructions and refusing his jury instructions. A defendant is entitled to instructions which fairly state the law, are supported by the evidence and are not unnecessarily duplicative. Two of the instructions were overly broad and not fully supported by the evidence. Those portions of the instructions which were correct statements of law and supported by the evidence were placed before the jury in other instructions. Issue 3: Speedy trial Jenkins argues that his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were violated. The court must consider length of the delay, reason for the delay, defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and resulting prejudice. Of the 991 days which elapsed between Jenkins' escape and his being brought to trial, 899 days of delay were attributable to Jenkins and the remaining 92 days were attributable to the court's participation in a prior trial setting. Jenkins did file a motion for a speedy trial but suffered no prejudice because of the delay. Based on these findings, the court appropriately overruled the motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. Issue 4: Right to be heard Jenkins argues that the court deprived him of his right to be heard at the hearing on the motion for a new trial. An appellate court may only review those matters properly preserved for appeal during trial. This issue was not preserved since the record does not indicate any expression by Jenkins of a desire to testify or make additional comments to the court at the close of the hearing. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
