Brown v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00702-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00702-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-19-2003 Opinion Author: Bridges, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Right to speedy trial - Waiver of issues - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Southwick, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-08-2002 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: POSSESSION OF COCAINE - SENTENCED TO SERVED 16 YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT PAY A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000 COURT COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $263 AND A BOND FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $100. District Attorney: Frank Carlton Case Number: 2001-309 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Anthony Brown a/k/a Anthony Trenell Brown a/k/a Anthony T. McGoo a/k/a McGoo |
HOWARD Q. DAVIS |
||
| 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: | Possession of cocaine - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Right to speedy trial - Waiver of issues - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Anthony Brown was convicted of possession of cocaine and sentenced to sixteen years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Brown argues that his counsel was ineffective, because he should have filed a motion to dismiss since Brown’s right to a speedy trial was violated. Factors to consider in determining if a speedy trial right has been violated include length of delay, reasons for delay, assertion of the right, and prejudice. Brown was tried within 270 days of arraignment as is required by statute. The reason for the delays was that the State was missing material witnesses which can be seen as a good cause for a continuance. Brown never requested a speedy trial nor has he claimed any prejudice to his defense as a result of this delay. Since his right to speedy trial was not violated, it was not ineffective assistance of counsel when his lawyer did not raise the issue of violation of speedy trial. Brown also argues that his attorney failed to receive adequate discovery in preparation for trial, failed to request a full evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress, failed to show the videotape taken the night of his arrest, and failed to request a continuance for Brown's illness on the day of the trial. To prove his claim, he must show his attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. Brown has not produced any evidence other than his own statement to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, he cannot prove that his lawyer was ineffective. Issue 2: Issues waived Brown argues that the court erred in requiring him to go to trial on a day that he claimed he was not feeling well and had just been released from the hospital earlier that day. He does not cite any authority to support his claim. An assignment of error that is unsupported by any legal authority need not be considered. He also argues that the court erred when it did not hold an evidentiary hearing on the chain of custody for the cocaine. Because Brown did not raise this issue at trial, it is waived. Brown also argues that his sentence should not have been enhanced from eight to sixteen years. Not only did he fail to raise this issue at trial, but he cites no authority. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Brown argues that there was a lack of evidence to support his conviction for possession of cocaine. Both officers who were present when Brown was arrested and who were eyewitnesses to the package being taken from Brown's mouth testified. The state crime lab analyst also testified that the substance found in Brown's mouth was cocaine. This testimony was convincing to the jury. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
