Carroll v. State
| Decision Date | 12 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2014–KA–01676–COA.,2014–KA–01676–COA. |
| Citation | 196 So.3d 1054 |
| Parties | Deldrick Lamont CARROLL a/k/a Deldrick Carroll a/k/a Lamont Carroll, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee. |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
Office of State Public Defender by George T. Holmes, Justin Taylor Cook, attorneys for appellant.
Office of the Attorney General by Abbie Eason Koonce, attorney for appellee.
Before LEE, C.J., CARLTON and FAIR, JJ.
CARLTON
, J., for the Court:
¶ 1. Lamont Carroll appeals his conviction for armed robbery and sentence of twenty-seven years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Carroll now appeals, asserting the following assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in trying him in absentia; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictment and charge him as a habitual offender; and (3) his constitutional right to counsel was violated.1 Finding no error, we affirm.
¶ 2. On April 6, 2012, a large group of people gathered at a house in Benton County, Mississippi, to celebrate Sophia Jackson's birthday. At the party, a group of twelve to fifteen men gathered in a side room of the house to play dice, including Carroll and Gary Patterson. Patterson testified that he brought approximately $1,000 in cash to use during the dice game.
¶ 3. As the game began to wind down, only six or seven men were left in the room playing. Patterson testified that as he was about to leave the game, Carroll pulled a gun out and pointed it at Patterson. Patterson dropped his money, and testified that men began jumping out of the window in the room and racing towards the door to get out. Patterson's brother, Reggie, witnessed the event and testified that Carroll asked Patterson, “You know what this is?” In response, Patterson dropped his money. Carroll collected Patterson's money, which Patterson testified amounted to $2,260, and quickly left the house. As he left, Carroll shot his gun in the air twice. Carroll drove off in a truck with two other unidentified men.
¶ 4. Patterson testified that after Carroll left, he left Sophia's house with his brother, and they drove to pick up his father, who lived nearby. The three men went to the Benton County Sheriff's Department to report the robbery. Patterson provided a statement to the deputies detailing the robbery. Deputy Joe Batts, the chief deputy of the Benton County Sheriff's Department, testified that the sheriff's deputies were aware of the party at Sophia's house that evening, because two deputies previously responded to a call about a noise complaint. The deputies asked the group to turn the music down, and then left.
¶ 5. The following Monday, April 9, Deputy Batts called Patterson and asked him to come to the sheriff's department to discuss the incident. Patterson informed Deputy Batts that Carroll, Carroll's brother, James Lewis, and another man from the party, Cornelius Jones, had been trying to call Patterson. Deputy Batts asked Patterson to call the men back so that he could record the conversation. Patterson called Jones and Lewis, and Patterson returned to the sheriff's department on April 11 to call Carroll. During the phone call, Carroll admitted to robbing Patterson, but denied pulling a gun on him. Carroll also assured Patterson that he would try to return the money to him. Deputy Batts recorded all three phone calls.
¶ 6. Deputy Batts also testified that in the weeks leading up to the trial, he interviewed Sophia's neighbor, who informed Deputy Batts that she heard gunfire on the evening of April 6, 2012.
¶ 7. On September 6, 2012, a Benton County grand jury indicted Carroll for armed robbery. Carroll subsequently waived arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty. The case was set for trial, and on October 8, 2014, Carroll was tried in absentia, and ultimately convicted of armed robbery. The trial court then sentenced Carroll as a habitual offender pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99–19–81
(Rev.2015) to serve twenty-seven years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Carroll filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. Carroll now appeals.
¶ 8. This Court reviews a trial court's finding that a defendant waived his constitutional right to be present at trial for an abuse of discretion. Miss.Code Ann. § 99–17–9
(Rev.2015); Wales v. State, 73 So.3d 1113, 1120 (¶ 17) (Miss.2011). This Court also reviews either the admission or exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Harrison v. McMillan, 828 So.2d 756, 765 (¶ 27) (Miss.2002). Even if this Court finds an erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence, we will not reverse unless the error adversely affects a substantial right of a party. Gibson v. Wright, 870 So.2d 1250, 1258 (¶ 28) (Miss.Ct.App.2004). We also acknowledge that Griffin v. State, 811 So.2d 291, 293 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2001).
¶ 9. The decision of the trial court “to allow an indictment to be amended is a question of law.” Williams v. State, 131 So.3d 1174, 1176–77 (¶ 6) (Miss.2014)
. This Court reviews questions of law de novo. Id.
¶ 10. On appeal, Carroll argues that the trial court erred in allowing him to be tried in absentia. Carroll asserts that the State offered no proof showing that Carroll willfully failed to show for trial. The State, however, responds that nothing in the record shows that Carroll's absence was not willful. The State argues that the record shows that Carroll waived arraignment, entered his plea, and knew of his trial date.
¶ 11. This Court reviews a trial court's finding that a defendant waived his constitutional right to be present at trial for an abuse of discretion. Miss.Code Ann. § 99–17–9
; Wales, 73 So.3d at 1120 (¶ 17). Carroll cites to Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 117, 104 S.Ct. 453, 78 L.Ed.2d 267 (1983), where the United States Supreme Court stated that “the right to personal presence at all critical stages of the trial and the right to counsel are fundamental rights of each criminal defendant.” Further, we recognize that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes a criminal defendant's right to be present at trial and “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” However, this right is not absolute and may be waived. Wales, 73 So.3d at 1118 (¶ 12).
¶ 12. Mississippi Code Annotated section 99–17–9
provides:
placed the decision to try a felony defendant in absentia within the discretion of the trial court. But this discretion necessarily must be limited by the fact that a felony defendant has a constitutional right to be present at trial. This right is subject to waiver if there is an intentional relinquishment of a known right or privilege.
Wales, 73 So.3d at 1120 (¶ 17)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The supreme court further explained that it had “held that a defendant's willful, voluntary, and deliberate actions in avoiding trial constituted a waiver.” Id.; see also
Jefferson v. State, 807 So.2d 1222, 1226 (¶¶ 14–15) (Miss.2002). As stated, this Court reviews a trial court's finding that a defendant waived his constitutional right to be present at trial for an abuse of discretion. Miss.Code Ann. § 99–17–9 ; Wales, 73 So.3d at 1120 (¶ 17).
¶ 13. We acknowledge that Carroll waived his arraignment and entered his plea on March 18, 2013. Although Carroll's trial was ultimately held on October 8, 2014, the record reflects that Carroll's case was set for trial during prior court terms in June 2013, August 2013, October 2013, June 2014, and at the beginning of the then-current term in August 2014. The record reflects that on the morning of the trial, after voir dire, Carroll's defense attorney moved for a continuance due to Carroll's absence. The defense attorney explained to the trial court,
¶ 14. The State responded, arguing that The defense attorney agreed that the State's assertions were true, and informed the trial court that he and Carroll “actually discussed this matter with the DA's office [on] Monday afternoon with Mr. Carroll present.” See URCCC 9.02
(trial docket); URCCC 8.04 (arraignment).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benthall v. State
...he had to be at trial, and offered no proof that his absence was not willful, deliberate, and voluntary. More recently, in Carroll v. State , 196 So. 3d 1054, 1058-59 (¶¶17-18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016), this Court found no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's decision to proceed in absen......
-
Word v. State
...Article 3, Section 26, of the Mississippi Constitution ; "[h]owever, this right is not absolute and may be waived." Carroll v. State , 196 So. 3d 1054, 1057 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Wales v. State , 73 So. 3d 1113, 1118 (¶12) (Miss. 2011) ).¶14. Mississippi Code Annotated section......
-
Haynes v. State, 2015–KA–00683–COA
...days before trial and did not call his attorney or answer his attorney's phone calls to him on the morning of the trial. Carroll v. State , 196 So.3d 1054, 1057–58 (¶¶ 13–14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). In addition, this Court affirmed a trial in absentia without a continuance of a defendant who......
-
Haynes v. State
...days before trial and did not call his attorney or answer his attorney's phone calls to him on the morning of the trial. Carroll v. State, 196 So. 3d 1054, 1057-58 (¶¶13-14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). In addition, this Court affirmed a trial in absentia without a continuance of a defendant whos......