Thames v. State, 54988
| Decision Date | 25 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 54988,54988 |
| Citation | 454 So.2d 486 |
| Parties | Donnell THAMES v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
V.W. Carmody, Jr., Stanfield & Holderfield, Jackson, for appellant.
Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Carolyn B. Mills, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ.
I.
On the evening of January 8, 1982, the business premises of Bourgeois Jewelers in Jackson, Mississippi were burglarized. On March 30, 1982, Donnell Thames, Defendant below and Appellant here, was formally charged with this burglary in an indictment returned by the Hinds County grand jury. The indictment further charged that Thames was a recidivist within the meaning of Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 99-19-81 (Supp.1983). Thames entered a plea of not guilty to all charges.
On March 17, 1983, this case was called for trial in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. That same day, after hearing all of the evidence and receiving the instructions of the Court, the jury found Thames guilty on the principal charge of burglary.
Immediately thereafter, the Circuit Court conducted a non-jury hearing on the recidivism issue. Without contradiction, the evidence established that Donnell Thames had, prior to that date, been convicted of two separate felonies, both burglaries. Accordingly, under the authority of Section 99-19-81 the Circuit Court committed Thames to the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections for a term of seven years without eligibility for probation or parole.
From this conviction and sentence, Thames appeals. We affirm.
II.
Thames claims that there was a fatal defect in the indictment in which he was charged. Putting the point another way, Thames urges that there was a fatal variance between the proof and the charge made in the indictment. The error involved was so completely waived that we do not reach its merits, which, to be sure, are hardly apparent.
The indictment charges that Thames burglarized "the store building of Alfred Bourgeois d/b/a Bourgeois Jewelers". The proof at trial established without contradiction that the premises burglarized by Thames were owned by one Adrienne Bourgeois. There was an error in the indictment, one without doubt curable by amendment.
Prior to trial Thames filed no demurrer or motion to quash the indictment. Two weeks less than a year elapsed between the return of the indictment and the date of trial. During that time the deficiency in the indictment now complained of was not mentioned. At trial the state proved that the premises were owned by Adrienne Bourgeois. No objection was made by the Defendant on the grounds that this proof varied from the indictment.
At the end of the State's case defense counsel made a perfunctory motion "to dismiss the charge against the Defendant on the basis of the failure of the state to prove the charge of the indictment". Counsel did not bring to the Court's attention at this point the error in the indictment or the variance between the proof and the indictment. Indeed, when the motion was made the trial judge asked defense counsel if the motion was based upon "anything particular?" to which counsel replied, "No, Your Honor."
At the conclusion of the proof and outside the presence of the jury, the State brought the discrepancy with which we are here concerned to the attention of the Court. In connection with the consideration of proposed Instruction No. S-1, the instruction which outlines the basic charge against Thames, the following colloquy took place.
Following the jury's guilty verdict and the imposition of sentence by the Court, Thames filed a motion for a new trial. The motion fails to assign the point here under consideration.
The sufficiency of indictments is controlled by Rule 2.05 of the Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambert v. State
...date have followed the federal standard in application of the Sixth Amendment right. Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468 (1984), Thames v. State, 454 So.2d 486 (1984). In Strickland v. Washington, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the United States Supreme Court set forth t......
-
Hill, In re
...supplanted Callahan v. State, 426 So.2d 801 (Miss.1983). See Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468, 476-478 (Miss.1984); Thames v. State, 454 So.2d 486, 487-488 (Miss.1984); Lambert v. State, 462 So.2d 308, 315-317- (Miss. The majority opinion merely cites the Strickland test and says "Applying ......
-
Handley v. State
...481 So.2d 850 (Miss.1985); Leatherwood v. State, 473 So.2d 964 (Miss.1985); Lambert v. State, 462 So.2d 308 (Miss.1984); Thames v. State, 454 So.2d 486 (Miss.1984). This Court set out the test and standards in Cabello v. State, 524 So.2d 313 In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 1......
-
Peterson v. State
...be unavailing. See Harden v. State, 465 So.2d 321, 324 (Miss.1985); Jones v. State, 461 So.2d 686, 693-94 (Miss.1984); Thames v. State, 454 So.2d 486, 487 (Miss.1984); Henderson v. State, 445 So.2d 1364, 1367-68 (Miss.1984). The assignment of error is Hines, 472 So.2d at 390. It is true tha......