Edwards v. State, 55452

• Decision Date: 20 March 1985
• Docket Number: No. 55452,55452
• Citation: Edwards v. State, 465 So.2d 1085 (Miss. 1985)
• Parties: Ray EDWARDS v. STATE of Mississippi.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 1085

465 So.2d 1085

Ray EDWARDS v.STATE of Mississippi.

No. 55452.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 20, 1985.

Samuel H. Wilkins, Jackson, for appellant.

Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by Leyser Q. Morris, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before WALKER, P.J., and DAN M. LEE and ROBERTSON, JJ.

DAN M. LEE, Justice, for the Court:

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Leake County wherein the appellant, Ray Edwards, was found guilty of extortion and sentenced to serve a term of one year in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.The sole issue on this appeal is whether Edwards' prosecution violates an agreement between him and the district attorney whereby Edwards would resign his position as constable in exchange for immunity from prosecution.

Ray Edwards, a former Leake County constable, was indicted for extortion.Through his attorney, Edwards filed a motion to quash the indictment on the grounds that it violated an agreement between him and the district attorney.At a hearing on that motion the district attorney testified that he had reached an agreement with Edwards' attorney which stated in part:

In the event Constable Edwards will resign from office and not seek reelection, either personally or through some close member of his family, these matters will not be presented to the Grand Jury.Mr. Robert King, the investigator with the Ethics Commission, expressed to me last week that he concurs with this action.

If Mr. Edwards resigns and does not seek reelection as stated in the above paragraph, all matters brought out in the Ethics Commission report will not be prosecuted.Obviously, if some other violation of the criminal laws comes to my attention, as to which I am not now familiar, this would have to be evaluated at that time.

The district attorney admitted that the extortion charge involved in this appeal was one of the subjects included in his letter to Edwards' attorney.

The district attorney stated that after reaching the agreement with Edwards he received notice that Edwards had resigned his position as constable and had withdrawn his name from candidacy for reelection.Subsequently, the grand jury decided to investigate Edwards on its own initiative.During the course of that investigation the district attorney explained to the grand jury the agreement he had reached with Edwards and the fact that Edwards had resigned his position as constable in reliance on that agreement.

Although the district attorney claimed to be acting in good faith, he at no time motioned the trial court to enter a nolle prosequi.Edwards' motion to quash the indictment was overruled and he was subsequently tried and found guilty of extortion.

In this appeal we are asked to decide the propriety and legal consequences of the agreement between the district attorney and Edwards.We begin our inquiry with reference to Sec. 99-15-53 Miss.Code Ann.(1972).That section reads:

A district attorney shall not compromise any cause or enter a nolle prosequi, either before or after indictment found, without the consent of the court; and, except as provided in the last preceding section, it shall not be lawful for any court to dismiss a criminal prosecution at the cost of the defendant, but every cause must be tried, unless dismissed by consent of the court.

Under the above quoted statute the district attorney clearly lacked the authority to compromise Edwards' prosecution.That conclusion alone cannot settle the issues raised in this appeal for there is more involved here than a promise to compromise the prosecution.Here, in addition to the promise, we also have affirmative acts on the part of the defendant...