Reynolds v. State, 1999-KA-01463-SCT.

• Decision Date: 26 April 2001
• Docket Number: No. 1999-KA-01463-SCT.,1999-KA-01463-SCT.
• Citation: Reynolds v. State, 784 So.2d 929 (Miss. 2001)
• Parties: Tony Keith REYNOLDS v. STATE of Mississippi.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

784 So.2d 929

Tony Keith REYNOLDS v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 1999-KA-01463-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 26, 2001.

B. Leon Johnson, Attorney for Appellant.

Office of the Attorney General by Dewitt T. Allred, III, Jackson, Attorney for Appellee.

BEFORE PITTMAN, C.J., COBB and DIAZ, JJ.

COBB, Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. On August 31, 1998, Tony Keith Reynolds shot and killed Gilbert Logan. Reynolds was arrested the same day and indicted in December, 1998, on charges of murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was charged as a habitual offender, pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-81 on the basis of two 1979 burglary convictions. On July 29, 1999, Reynolds was convicted after a two-day jury trial and sentenced to life in prison without parole. The trial court denied Reynolds' post-trial motions, and he appeals to this Court on the following issue:

I. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES DURING THE MURDER TRIAL.

¶ 2. Subsequent to the brief by his counsel, Reynolds also submitted a pro se supplemental brief which was accepted by this Court and which raises the following additional issues:

II. WHETHER REYNOLDS WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.

III. WHETHER REYNOLDS IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF BASED ON A CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

IV. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY ADJUDICATED REYNOLDS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER.

¶ 3. Finding no merit to these assignments of error, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

FACTS

¶ 4. The facts of this case are largely undisputed. On August 31, 1998, the murder victim, Gib Logan, and a friend of his named Robert Mitchum came to Cooter's Bar and Lounge in Grenada, Mississippi, so that Gib could talk to his estranged wife Tammy Logan, a Cooter's employee. Reynolds, a mechanic, was present at Cooter's working on the owner's truck. At some point during Gib and Tammy's conversation, Reynolds intervened, first by pointing a pistol at Mitchum's head and ordering him to leave and then by doing the same to Gib. According to Reynolds' testimony, Gib hit Reynolds' hand, and the gun discharged, killing Gib.

¶ 5. Following his August 1998 arrest and December 1998 arraignment, the record reflects an Order of Continuance granted to Reynolds on January 19, 1999, and an Agreed Order of Continuance granted on February 19, 1999. On July 22, 1999, the trial court denied Reynolds' motion to dismiss for want of a speedy trial, and the trial began.

¶ 6. During the trial, Robert Mitchum testified that Reynolds first pointed a gun at him and told him to leave shortly before shooting Gib. Reynolds objected to this testimony and then moved for a mistrial on the grounds that Mitchum's testimony constituted a separate prior crime and that the prejudicial effect of the testimony outweighed its probative value. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the probative value of the testimony outweighed its prejudicial impact and that possession of a firearm was obviously a necessary element of the crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The events appeared to be, if not simultaneous in time, then at most two or three minutes apart. On July 29, 1999, the jury found Reynolds guilty on both counts of the indictment and sentenced him as a habitual offender to life in prison without parole.

ANALYSIS

I. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES DURING THE MURDER TRIAL.

¶ 7. Reynolds' first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that he put a gun to Robert Mitchum's head and ordered him to leave Cooter's. Reynolds argues that the admission of this testimony violated Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b), which states:

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

M.R.E. 404(b). In addition to the exceptions listed within the rule itself, this Court has also held that evidence of other crimes is admissible where "the offense charged and that offered to be proved are so interrelated as to constitute a single transaction or occurrence or a closely related series of transactions or occurrences." Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743, 759 (Miss.1984)(holding that defendant's confession of two murders in addition to one for which he was charged was admissible because omission of said murders would render confession incoherent). The trial court's rulings on the relevance and admissibility of evidence are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Weaver v. State, 713 So.2d 860, 865 (Miss.1997).

¶ 8. As the trial court noted, Mitchum's testimony was relevant in proving count two of the indictment, as well as to show Reynolds' preparation and intent, and thereby differentiate between accident, manslaughter, and murder. In any event, the prior bad act was part of the same transaction. This argument is without merit.

II. WHETHER REYNOLDS WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.

¶ 9. Reynolds has also raised pro se a claim that his right to a speedy trial was violated. A criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial is secured by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by Article 3, Section 26 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890. Beavers v. State, 498 So.2d 788, 789 (Miss.1986). The Mississippi Code also creates a statutory speedy trial right, stating: "Unless good cause be shown, and a continuance duly granted by the court, all offenses for which indictments are presented to the court shall be tried no later than two hundred seventy (270) days after the accused has been arraigned." Miss.Code Ann. § 99-17-1 (2000). This statutory right, often referred to as the 270-day rule, attaches at arraignment rather than at arrest. Handley v. State, 574 So.2d 671, 674 (Miss.1990). The chronology for this case is as follows:

August 31, 1998....... Reynolds Arrested December 10, 1998..... Reynolds Indicted December 15, 1998.... Reynolds Arraigned January 19, 1999..... Reynolds' Order of Continuance Filed¹ February 19, 1999....... Agreed Order of Continuance Filed July 22, 1999.............. Trial Begins

A. The Constitutional Right

¶ 10. In reviewing such a constitutional challenge, this Court has not set a specific length of time as being per se unconstitutional, but instead applies the four-part balancing test articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). Handley, 574 So.2d at 674. The four Barker factors to consider are: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right, and (4) the prejudice to the defendant. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530,92 S.Ct. 2182. None of the four factors is determinative; rather, a totality of the circumstances test is used. Beavers, 498 So.2d at 790. However, while all the factors are relevant for the balancing test, this Court has recognized that a delay of eight (8) months or more is presumptively prejudicial. Smith v. State, 550 So.2d 406, 408 (Miss.1989). Where the delay is not presumptively prejudicial, there is no need to review the remaining Barker factors. Handley, 574 So.2d at 677.

¶ 11. The record in this case reflects that Reynolds was arrested on August 31, 1998, and the first continuance in this case was filed on January 19, 1999—a total of only 131 days. The January 19 continuance was sought by and granted to Reynolds. The February 19 continuance was agreed to by both parties. In light of these facts, this delay was not presumptively prejudicial, and there is no need to review the remaining Barker factors. Reynolds' constitutional speedy trial claim fails.

B. The Statutory Right

¶ 12. In addition to the constitutional rights afforded by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment and by Article 3 of the Mississippi Constitution, Reynolds also has the statutory right to a speedy trial arising from Miss.Code Ann. § 99-17-1. Under this provision, where the accused is not tried within 270 days of his arraignment, the defendant is entitled to dismissal. Nations v. State, 481 So.2d 760, 761 (Miss.1985). However, continuances for "good cause" toll the running of the 270-day period, unless "the record is silent regarding the reason for the delay," and then "the clock ticks against the State because the State bears the risk of non-persuasion on the good cause issue." Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 953 (Miss.1997)(quoting Vickery v. State, 535 So.2d 1371, 1375 (Miss.1988)). A written order stating that a motion for continuance is well taken and should be granted is the equivalent of a judicial determination that good cause exists. Nations, 481 So.2d at 762. Continuances attributable to the defendant stop the running of the clock and are deducted from the total number of days before trial in determining whether the 270-day rule applies. Vickery, 535 So.2d at 1376.

¶ 13. In the case sub judice, Reynolds has a less persuasive claim under the statute than he did under Barker. Only twenty-six days elapsed between Reynolds' indictment and the filing of the first continuance. Since both continuances toll the running of the statute, the 270-day rule plainly was not violated.

III. WHETHER REYNOLDS IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF BASED ON A CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

¶ 14. The second issue raised in Reynolds' supplemental brief is that he was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he argues that his attorney was ineffective because he agreed to continuances which delayed Reynolds' trial and because his attorney permitted an attorney to sit on the jury, apparently over Reynolds' objections.

¶ 15. The standard of review for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a two-part test: the defendant must prove, under the...