Peeples v. State
| Decision Date | 20 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45199,45199 |
| Citation | 218 So.2d 436 |
| Parties | Hugh PEEPLES v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Arrington & Arrington, Hazlehurst, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Laurence Y. Mellen, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
The facts pertinent to this appeal are: The appellant, Hugh Peeples, was indicted jointly with James Dale Sheffield, Marvin Skinner, Edwina Skinner, Alvin Bradley, and Dorothy Amoroso for the burglary of the Alford-Miller Company in Gallman, Mississippi, on September 24, 1965. Appellant was tried and convicted at the November 1966 Term of the Circuit Court of Copiah County, Mississippi, and was sentenced to seven years in the Mississippi State Penitentiary at parchman, Mississippi. Appellant's conviction rested almost entirely upon the testimony given against him by James Sheffield, a codefendant. Sheffield also testified at the trial of Alvin Bradley, who likewise was convicted. Subsequently Marvin Skinner, Edwina Skinner, and Dorothy Amoroso pled guilty to the crime charged. The proof shows that Sheffield testified three times under oath implicating his codefendants in the crime and that he related the identical narrative on several occasions while not under oath. Sheffield also pled guilty and was sentenced to four years at Parchman.
After having been imprisoned in Parchman for over a year and having testified in November 1966 and February 1967, on June 16, 1967, Sheffield had a fellow inmate, whose name he refused to reveal, secretly write and make several copies of a letter in which he repudiated his former testimony and stated that the state prosecutor and the sheriff of Copiah County had informed him that he would be tried for perjury or escape if he did not testify for the State. One copy of this letter was surreptitiously delivered to the appellant and another to Alvin Bradley. On December 14, 1967, Sheffield testified in the habeas corpus proceeding of Alvin Bradley and recanted his earlier testimony. Bradley's motion for habeas corpus was denied in the lower court and this cause is now on
Subsequent to Bradley's habeas corpus
Subsequent to Bradley's habeas corpus proceeding and prior to the motion by appellant to vacate the judgment and sentence on the ground of newly discovered evidence, Sheffield was paroled and allowed to return to the State of Florida. After experiencing much difficulty in attempting to contact Sheffield, appellant's attorney received two calls from Sheffield on December 11, 1967. During the second call Sheffield stated that his parole officer would not let him leave Florida unless he received a subpoena. Sheffield agreed to call back the next day, the 12th, but he did not do so. After attempts to contact Sheffield proved fruitless, Sheffield's parole officer finally agreed to hunt for him. At precisely five minutes to seven on the day of the trial, December 14, 1967, Sheffield called from Florida to say that he had just gotten the papers giving him permission to come and testify, but, of course, it was impossible for the witness to get the Mississippi by nine o'clock. No subpoena was ever issued for Sheffield, nor did the appellant's attorney ever send him any money to come for the trial as Sheffield had requested.
Appellant's attorney proffered the testimony given by Sheffield at the habeas corpus proceeding of Alvin Bradley which also included the testimony given in the original trials of appellant and of Bradley. This evidence was rejected by the trial judge, but was placed in the record along with the opinion of the court in the Bradley habeas corpus proceeding. The State then made a motion to dismiss, which was sustained, and from that ruling this case was appealed.
The appellant assigns as error that the court below erred (1) in sustaining the objection to the sworn testimony taken at a former hearing, (2) in failing to grant the appellant a new trial on his petition of writ of habeas corpus in the nature of a petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis, (3) in failing to grant the appellant a new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill, In re
...an adequate ground for granting a new trial or writ of error coram nobis. Bradley v. State, 214 So.2d 815 (Miss.1968); Peeples v. State, 218 So.2d 436 (Miss.1969); Summerville v. Cook, 311 F.Supp. 931 (N.D.Miss.1970).11 Technically, newly-discovered evidence may not serve as grounds for iss......
-
Howell v. State
...does not necessarily entitle the petitioner to a new trial. Russell v. State, 849 So.2d 95, 107 (Miss.2003) (citing Peeples v. State, 218 So.2d 436, 438 (Miss.1969) ; Williams v. State, 669 So.2d 44, 53 (Miss.1996) ).Howell II, 989 So.2d at 384 (¶ 33). When a defendant moves for a new trial......
-
Howell v. State
...does not necessarily entitle the petitioner to a new trial. Russellv. State, 849 So. 2d 95, 107 (Miss. 2003) (citing Peeples v. State, 218 So. 2d 436, 438 (Miss. 1969); Williams v. State, 669 So. 2d 44, 53 (Miss. 1996)).Howell II, 989 So. 2d at 384 (¶ 33). When a defendant moves for a new t......
-
Jolly v. State
...resulting in inability to testify at the second proceeding, or (d) mental incapacity (§ 234, pp. 491-496); Compare Peeples v. State, 218 So.2d 436, 438 (Miss.1969). See also Holman v. Washington, 364 F.2d 618, 622 (5 Cir., 1966); Davis v. State, 255 So.2d 916, 919-920 (Miss.1971); Lipscomb ......