Dorsey v. State

Decision Date02 February 2021
Docket NumberNO. 2020-KA-00032-COA,2020-KA-00032-COA
Citation310 So.3d 1238
Parties Tanya Michelle DORSEY a/k/a Tanya Dorsey, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee
CourtMississippi Court of Appeals

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ALLISON ELIZABETH HORNE

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., McDONALD AND LAWRENCE, JJ.

McDONALD, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. On August 9, 2019, a Rankin County Circuit Court jury found Tanya Michelle Dorsey guilty of shooting into the dwelling house of Christopher and Leslie Smith. The circuit court sentenced Dorsey to ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) with four years suspended and six years to serve, followed by five years of supervised probation. Dorsey filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), a motion to vacate the judgment, and motion for a new trial on October 7, 2019. The circuit court denied Dorsey's motions. On January 8, 2020, Dorsey appealed, raising the following issues: (1) whether the circuit court erred in failing to conduct a competency hearing immediately prior to trial; (2) whether the circuit court erred in failing to grant a mistrial where the prosecutor argued facts specifically excluded from evidence by the court; and (3) whether the circuit court erred in sentencing Dorsey to a term that exceeds the statutory limitation. Finding no error, we affirm.

Statement of the Facts and Procedural History

¶2. For several years, Dorsey lived at a house located at 504 Pine Park Cove, Brandon, Mississippi. On July 25, 2011, Christopher and Leslie Smith (the Smiths) became Dorsey's next-door neighbors. Christopher described his relationship with Dorsey as "initially awkward," but Leslie described her relationship with Dorsey as friendly. According to Christopher, his relationship with Dorsey worsened toward the end of 2016 because he had installed security cameras around his house.1

¶3. In December 2017, Dorsey went to Christopher's place of employment at the University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC), where Christopher worked for the systems administration department. Upon her arrival, the first person that Dorsey encountered was Russell Donald. Dorsey told Donald that she would like to speak to Christopher's supervisor. Donald informed Dorsey that he was the director of information technology for UMMC, so she could speak to him. Dorsey told Donald that she was Christopher's neighbor, that they had known each other for some time, and that they talked about cars since they both had Lexus vehicles. Then Dorsey told Donald that Christopher had begun harassing her and caused her internet service to be disconnected. She also told Donald that Christopher did not want to be with Leslie anymore. Dorsey showed Donald paperwork that indicated that she had contacted the sheriff's department.2 Donald told her that it sounded like a civil matter, so she needed to handle it in court. Dorsey thanked Donald and left the premises. By that time, Christopher had already left work for the day.

¶4. Christopher learned that Dorsey had come to his workplace, and as a result, he filed a report with the UMMC campus police. In the same month, Dorsey moved out of her house. According to the Smiths, they had not seen or heard from Dorsey again until March 2018.

¶5. On the morning of March 23, 2018, around 6:30 a.m., while Christopher was preparing for work and Leslie was in the bathroom in their house, the Smiths heard three "pops." Christopher went into the kitchen and discovered bullet holes in their kitchen window and shattered glass and debris on the floor. He found a bullet that had gone through cabinets and another bullet lodged in the crown molding. The Smiths reviewed their home-security camera footage and saw a 2003 silver Lexus driving by at the time of the shooting. The video also showed three flashes coming from the vehicle. Because they had been neighbors for several years, the Smiths recognized the car as Dorsey's and called the police.

¶6. Investigator Brett McAlpin of the Rankin County Sheriff's Department responded to the call. He assessed the scene and discovered two bullets in the kitchen. He was able to recover the bullet from the crown molding but could not recover the other bullet because it had fallen into the cavity of the wall. McAlpin secured the evidence for transfer and examination by the state crime lab. McAlpin also reviewed the Smiths’ security video footage. The Smiths told McAlpin that they suspected Dorsey was the shooter because the footage showed a silver Lexus, which they were aware that Dorsey owned. McAlpin called the sheriff's department to see if any vehicles were registered in Dorsey's name. Dispatch confirmed that Dorsey had a silver Lexus registered in her name. McAlpin obtained Dorsey's tag number and contacted Ricky Davis of the Flowood Police Department to pull information regarding her tag from the city's license plate reader (LPR) system. The LPR showed that Dorsey traveled in the direction of the Smiths’ home at 6:18 a.m. and traveled opposite of that direction at 6:48 a.m.

¶7. Based on the information McAlpin received from Davis, McAlpin obtained an arrest warrant for Dorsey. She was arrested the same day of a shooting at an apartment complex where Dorsey resided with Daniel Bowman.3 United States Marshals Fugitive Task Force Officer Wes Shivers arrested Dorsey at Bowman's apartment as she was getting into her vehicle, a silver Lexus. Officer Shivers searched Dorsey's person and property without a search warrant and found a .22-caliber Beretta pistol in the glove box of her car.4 Investigator McAlpin performed a gunshot-residue (GSR) test on Dorsey's palms following her arrest. David Whitehead, a trace-evidence forensics expert for the Mississippi Forensics Laboratory, identified particles of gunshot residue on Dorsey's palms and on the back of her hands. Tommy Bishop, a firearms examination expert for the Mississippi Forensics Laboratory, examined the pistol found in Dorsey's glove compartment and the bullet and determined that they had the similarities and class characteristics consistent with at least one of the bullets found in the Smiths’ home. But Bishop could not say whether the bullet was fired from Dorsey's gun primarily because the bullet was damaged. However, the projectile retrieved at the scene was the same caliber and had the same number of "lands and grooves" as Dorsey's gun.5

¶8. Furthermore, according to Bowman, on the morning of the shooting, he heard Dorsey leave the apartment around 6:00 a.m. or 6:30 a.m. After Dorsey returned to the apartment around 9:30 a.m., she showed him two spent shell casings before throwing them in the trash. Bowman also stated that prior to the day of the shooting, Dorsey told him about the Smiths and how they tried to spy on her when they were neighbors. Dorsey had previously taken Bowman to her old neighborhood and showed him her old house and the Smiths’ house. Bowman testified that he previously had seen Dorsey with a .22-caliber gun, which she normally kept in her purse. Dorsey had also told Bowman that she enjoyed driving around by herself and firing her gun, shooting bullets out of her vehicle.

A. Dorsey's Ability to Stand Trial

¶9. Prior to Dorsey's indictment, the County Court of Rankin County ordered Dorsey to undergo a psychological evaluation due to her inability to effectively communicate with the court and her counsel.6 Dr. Criss Lott evaluated Dorsey on April 5, 2018, and May 3, 2018, and provided the following in his report:

ADJUDICATIVE COMPETENCY:
It is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, that Ms. Dorsey does not have sufficient present ability to confer with her attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and she does not have a factual and rational understanding of the nature and object of the legal proceedings against her. Ms. Dorsey appeared actively mentally ill and is need of treatment.
MENTAL STATE AT TIME OF ALLEGED OFFENSE:
I am unable to offer an opinion regarding Ms. Dorsey's mental state at the time of the index offense7 as she was actively mentally ill and did not appear competent to proceed to trial.

After Dr. Lott's evaluation, Dorsey received treatment through Region 8 Mental Health Services.

¶10. On July 2, 2018, a Rankin County grand jury indicted Dorsey for shooting into a dwelling house pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-37-29 (Rev. 2014).8 During her arraignment, Dorsey pled not guilty on August 25, 2018.

¶11. Dorsey filed a motion for a mental examination and for a continuance pursuant to Rule 12.2 of the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure9 and Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-13-11 (Rev. 2015)10 on January 3, 2019. Dorsey argued that she needed a follow-up examination and that she was not sane at the time the offense was committed. That same day, Dorsey filed a notice of insanity defense pursuant to Rule 17.4 of the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure.11 The court scheduled a competency hearing for January 22, 2019.

¶12. Dr. Lott examined Dorsey again on January 19, 2019, and January 22, 2019. Dr. Lott testified that when he met with Dorsey on January 19, "she was unable to give succinct answers to simple questions, [and] she was able to pose direct questions." When he met with Dorsey on January 22, Dr. Lott testified that she was much more succinct, reasonable, and rational in her responses. Dr. Lott testified that Dorsey was coherent and was able to understand the nature of the proceedings against her. Moreover, Dorsey had been treated for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). She also had been treated for depression. Dr. Lott testified that Dorsey had been compliant with his recommendations and treatments. Based on these findings, Dr. Lott concluded that Dorsey would be able to assist and communicate rationally with her attorney...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Trest v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 23 de maio de 2023
    ...... limine. . .          ¶24. "Whether to grant a motion for a mistrial is within the. sound discretion of the trial court. The standard of review. for [a] denial of a motion for a mistrial is abuse of. discretion." Dorsey v. State , 310 So.3d 1238,. 1247 (¶26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Smith v. State , 158 So.3d 1182, 1185 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)). "A trial judge need declare a mistrial only when. there is an error in the proceedings resulting in substantial. and irreparable ......
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 17 de janeiro de 2023
    ...... court admitted the recording into evidence; the State then. played the recording for the jury. . 7 . .          ¶15. In the video recording, Claiborne informed Investigator. Jefferson that an acquaintance named Levy Dorsey dropped. Jones off at Claiborne's home around 10 p.m. on the night. of Ellis's murder. Claiborne stated that Jones had. admitted to getting into some trouble. When Claiborne asked. for further details, Jones had confessed that he hit a woman. in the head while she was ......
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 17 de janeiro de 2023
    ...... court admitted the recording into evidence; the State then. played the recording for the jury. . 8 . .          ¶15. In the video recording, Claiborne informed Investigator. Jefferson that an acquaintance named Levy Dorsey dropped. Jones off at Claiborne's home around 10 p.m. on the night. of Ellis's murder. Claiborne stated that Jones had. admitted to getting into some trouble. When Claiborne asked. for further details, Jones had confessed that he hit a woman. in the head while she was ......
  • Davis v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 6 de dezembro de 2022
    ...... In weighing whether a remark warrants a mistrial, "a. trial judge is best suited to determine the prejudicial. effect of an objectionable remark and is given considerable. discretion in deciding whether the remark is so prejudicial. as to merit a mistrial." Dorsey v. State, 310 So.3d 1238, 1249 (¶36) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Unless. serious and irreparable damage results from an improper. comment, the judge should. . . 4. . . admonish the jury then and there to disregard ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT