Hughey v. State
| Decision Date | 02 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 56308,56308 |
| Citation | 512 So.2d 4 |
| Parties | Alvie Charles HUGHEY v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Mary Ann Smith, Corinth, for appellant.
Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by Wayne Snuggs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before WALKER, C.J., and PRATHER and SULLIVAN, JJ.
In the Circuit Court of Alcorn County, Alvie Charles Hughey was convicted of armed robbery. The jury being unable to fix his penalty, the trial court sentenced him to a term of fifteen (15) years. Hughey appeals that conviction and sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
On the afternoon of April 29, 1981, Mr. and Mrs. Haley Haney were working in the small grocery store they owned on Proper Street in Alcorn County. At 4:00 p.m., two (2) men came into the store, but left without making any purchase. Approximately an hour later, they returned to the store, accompanied by a woman. While the woman asked to purchase some bologna, the two (2) men closed the doors to the store, which had been propped open because of the warm weather. After the doors were closed, one of the men demanded that Mrs. Haney give him her ring, which she did, and that Mr. Haney give him the money from the cash register. When Mr. Haney hesitated, one of the men, later identified as Alvie Hughey, threatened to shoot and kill Mrs. Haney. Hughey had "what appeared to be a gun", under his shirt, and Mrs. Haney saw "the prints of a gun" under his shirt, although Hughey "never took the gun out." Before Mr. Haney could remove the money from the cash register, Tommy Williams, a frequent customer, came to the door of the grocery store, intending to enter. While moving toward the other door along with his two (2) companions, Hughey again threatened to shoot Mrs. Haney unless someone gave him the money from the cash register. Mrs. Haney opened the door which Tommy Williams was approaching, informed him that the store was being robbed, and asked him to "call the law." Mr. Haney then took the money from the cash register and gave it to Hughey. As Williams left to call law enforcement officers, the trio exited the store with $200.00 in cash and the ring, which was a diamond cluster.
As he drove away to call the police, Williams encountered a red light and had to stop because of approaching vehicles which had the right of way. While Williams was stopped at the intersection, Hughey opened the door to Williams' car and got in. Hughey stated that he had robbed the store and that he had a gun. When Hughey instructed Williams to drive to "the projects," Williams did so. Hughey then got out of the car.
Before he could be apprehended, Hughey fled to New York state, where he was arrested for criminal possession of a weapon. After being convicted on that charge, he entered a New York prison in March of 1982.
In 1984, Hughey was tried on the armed robbery charge in the Circuit Court of Alcorn County; the jury returned a verdict of guilty, but could not reach an agreement as to penalty. The trial court then sentenced Hughey to serve a term of fifteen (15) years. He appeals, assigning three (3) errors.
I. WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO CONVICT FOR ARMED ROBBERY?
Hughey argues that there was no evidence to prove that he exhibited a gun, and that he therefore could not be convicted of armed robbery. This argument is without merit. Hughey had under his shirt an object which looked like a gun. Mrs. Haney testified that she saw "the prints of a gun." Immediately after the robbery, Hughey himself told Tommy Williams that he had a gun. This evidence, along with the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, was sufficient to present a jury question as to whether Hughey exhibited a deadly weapon. Valentine v. State, 415 So.2d 687, 689 (Miss.1982).
II. DID THE COURT ERR IN CAUSING HUGHEY TO GO TO TRIAL ON THE DAY HE WAS ARRAIGNED, AND IN CAUSING HUGHEY TO GO TO TRIAL ON A DATE NINE DAYS AFTER HIS COUNSEL WAS NOTIFIED THAT SHE WAS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT HIM?
Hughey moved for a continuance, alleging that he needed more time to prepare his claim of a violation of his right to a speedy trial. Although the trial court denied the continuance, an evidentiary hearing on Hughey's speedy trial claim was conducted after trial. The merits of that claim are discussed with regard to the next assignment of error. The grant or denial of a continuance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Gates v. State, 484 So.2d 1002, 1006 (Miss.1986); Carter v. State, 473 So.2d 471, 475 (Miss.1985). We find no abuse of that discretion in the instant case.
III. WAS THE DEFENDANT DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL?
The following is a chronology of the events involved in this claim:
April 29, 1981 The robbery with which Hughey was
charged occurred
May, 1981 Hughey was indicted for armed robbery
September 9, 1981 Hughey was arrested in New York state on
a weapons charge
March 5, 1982 Hughey entered a state prison in New York
to serve two to six (2-6) years for the weapons
conviction
April 22, 1982 New York correctional officer notified
Mississippi Assistant Attorney General by mail
that the Mississippi detainer lodged against
Hughey had been received, that Mississippi
authorities would be notified before Hughey
was released, and that the Mississippi "warrant
[was] not eligible for speedy trial."
That same day Hughey executed a
document entitled "Agreement on Detainers
Form II," which contained a notice of place
of imprisonment, request for disposition of
indictments, and waiver of extradition. Had
Mississippi been a party to the Interstate
Agreement on Detainers, then Mississippi
would have been required, within 180 days
of Hughey's waiver, to try him or remove
the detainer. Mississippi, however, is not a
party to the IAD. The document was not
effective to waive extradition. It is not
clear whether this document was sent to
Mississippi officials.
September, 1982 Hughey, having been informed by legal
services that Mississippi was not a party to
IAD, wrote to a Mississippi Assistant Attorney
General and to the Chief Judge of the
Circuit Court of Alcorn County, asking that
he be tried at the earliest possible date.
October 21, 1982 District Attorney John R. Young wrote to
Roadney Moody, a New York corrections official.
In the letter, which was apparently a
follow-up to a telephone call, the district
attorney thanked Moody for advising him of
the "papers needed by [the New York prison]
to return [Hughey to Mississippi] for
trial." The letter ended, "Would you please
send me your Interstate Forms 6 and 7 so
that I can be sure to have what you need."
December 3, 1982 District attorney wrote to Hughey, telling
him that he should sign a waiver of extradition
so he could be tried in January of 1983
The district attorney stated in the letter that
Hughey should see Rodney Moody, who
would furnish him with the appropriate
forms.
January 4, 1983 Rodney Moody wrote to Hughey, stating the
following: "This is in response to your recent
communication indicating that I was to
furnish you with the appropriate forms for
Waiver of Extradition for the State of Mississippi.
My records indicate that you
signed the correct form ... on April 22,
1982. For your information I am enclosing
a copy of that form." The document to
which Moody referred was the IAD form.
February 22, 1983 Prisoners' Legal Services of New York
wrote to Hughey, responding to his letter
and telling him that he had done everything
possible to get Mississippi to prosecute.
May 17, 1983 Hughey wrote to a Mississippi Assistant
Attorney General and to the Chief Judge of
the Circuit Court of Alcorn County, asserting
his right to a speedy trial and stating, by
affidavit, that he had waived extradition.
July 20, 1983 New York informed the district attorney
that Hughey would be released on September
20, 1983.
October 4, 1983 The district attorney began extradition
procedures. New York continued to hold Hughey
for Mississippi.
November 29, 1983 Governor of New York signed extradition
order.
December 19, 1983 The day before New York would have
released Hughey (they would hold him on
detainer for 90 days past his release date)
Mississippi authorities went to New York
and transported him to Mississippi.
February 1, 1984 Hughey was tried in Mississippi for armed
robbery.
In determining whether a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, we utilize a four-part balancing test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), and applied by this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Livingston v. State, 57198
...right to a speedy trial has been violated. These rights normally attach at arraignment and indictment, respectively. See Hughey v. State, 512 So.2d 4, 7 (Miss.1987); Darby v. State, 476 So.2d 1192, 1194 (Miss.1985). Livingston's indictment in this case occurred September 5, 1985. The record......
-
Fleming v. State
...(right to speedy trial is designed to protect against, inter alia, oppressive pre-trial incarceration); see also Hughey v. State, 512 So.2d 4, 11 (Miss.1987) (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 532-33, 92 S.Ct. at 2192-93). Perhaps so, but one must remember that the length of Fleming's incarceratio......
-
Johnson v. State
...124 (Miss.2004); Sharp v. State, 786 So.2d 372, 381 (Miss.2001). FN18. See Smith v. State, 550 So.2d 406, 409 (Miss.1989); Hughey v. State, 512 So.2d 4, 8 (Miss.1987); Beavers v. State, 498 So.2d 788, 791–92 (Miss.1986). FN19. See Moffett, 49 So.3d at 1087–1088; Jenkins, 947 So.2d at 276 (M......
-
Johnson v. State
...(Miss. 2004); Sharp v. State, 786 So. 2d 372, 381 (Miss. 2001). 18. See Smith v. State, 550 So. 2d 406, 409 (Miss. 1989); Hughey v. State, 512 So. 2d 4, 8 (Miss. 1987); Beavers v. State, 498 So. 2d 788, 791-92 (Miss. 1986). 19.See Moffett, 49 So. 2d at 1087-1088; Jenkins, 947 So. 2d at 276 ......