Jason Ron Brooks v. State of Mississippi ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2018-KA-00468-COA
JASON RON BROOKS A/K/A JASON R. APPELLANT
BROOKS A/K/A JASON BROOKS
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/08/2018
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. GEORGE M. MITCHELL JR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: CHOCTAW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
BY: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LAURA TEDDER SHARP
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: DOUG EVANS
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 10/22/2019
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE J. WILSON, P.J., McDONALD AND McCARTY, JJ.
McCARTY, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Jason Ron Brooks was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence and
sentenced to serve ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections
(MDOC). Finding no arguable issue on appeal, Brooks’s appellate counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 2005). Brooks was given additional time
to file a supplemental brief but did not. After an independent review of the record and the
briefs, we conclude that there are no reversible issues and affirm Brooks’s conviction and
sentence.
FACTS
¶2. Jason Ron Brooks was driving under the influence when he struck Marion
McCullock’s car, causing it to roll multiple times. As a result, McCullock was severely
injured with multiple shattered and fractured bones, lacerations, and a concussion. Her
doctor testified that McCullock was “permanently altered” due to her injuries.
¶3. Security-camera footage captured the wreck, of which a ten-second clip was shown
to the jury. At a pre-trial hearing, Brooks sought to suppress the video evidence or, in the
alternative, present the video in its entirety. The motion to suppress was denied, and Brooks
was granted permission to show the video in mitigation, which he declined to do.
¶4. There was another motion hearing on the admissibility of the intoxilyzer test. Brooks
challenged the validity of the results, arguing that the administering officer did not comply
with the requisite twenty-minute observation period. After hearing testimony from the
officer and watching footage from his body camera, the trial court found that the intoxilyzer
test was properly administered.
¶5. Brooks also sought to suppress any statements made while he was in custody and
being questioned. At the hearing on the motion, Brooks’s father testified that Brooks never
received his Miranda rights.1 However, the arresting officer testified that he had informed
Brooks of his rights. After watching video footage from the officer’s body camera and
listening to the testimony presented, the trial court found the officer properly administered
Miranda.
1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
2
¶6. After his conviction and sentence, Brooks filed a motion for a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict and an alternative motion for a new trial, both of which were
denied.
¶7. Brooks’s appeal was assigned to the Mississippi Office of Indigent Appeals. His
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Lindsey, representing to having “scoured the record” and
unable to find any appealable issues. Brooks was granted an additional forty days to file a
supplemental pro se brief, but he did not file a brief.
DISCUSSION
¶8. In Lindsey the Mississippi Supreme Court adopted a procedure “to govern cases where
appellate counsel represents an indigent criminal defendant and does not believe his or her
client’s case presents any arguable issues on appeal.” Id. at 748 (¶18).
¶9. The first step of this procedure is for the appellate counsel to “file and serve a brief
in compliance with Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(1)-[(5), (8)] . . . .” Id.
Second, counsel must certify in his or her brief that
there are no arguable issues supporting the client’s appeal, and he or she has
reached this conclusions after scouring the record thoroughly, specifically
examining: (a) the reason for the arrest and the circumstances surrounding
arrest; (b) any possible violations of the client’s right to counsel; (c) the entire
trial transcript; (d) all rulings of the trial court; (e) possible prosecutorial
misconduct; (f) all jury instructions; (g) all exhibits, whether admitted into
evidence or not; and (h) possible misapplication of the law in sentencing.
Id. Third, counsel must send a copy of his brief to the defendant, inform the defendant that
no appealable issues were found, and advise the defendant of the right to file a pro se brief.
Id. Fourth, the appellate court will determine, based on its review of the record and any pro
3
se brief filed, if there is any arguable issue. Id. If so, the court will require appellate counsel
to submit supplemental briefing on that issue “regardless of the probability of the defendant’s
success on appeal.” Id. Last, “[o]nce briefing is complete, the appellate court must consider
the case on the merits and render a decision.” Id.
¶10. Brooks’s appellate counsel asserted that pursuant to Lindsey they had scoured the
record and were unable to identify any arguable issues warranting appellate review. Counsel
informed Brooks accordingly and advised him of his right to file a pro se brief. Brooks did
not. The State agrees with Brooks’s counsel that the case is devoid of an arguable issue and
asks that Brooks’s conviction and sentence be affirmed.
¶11. After a thorough and independent review of the record, including the indictment, all
pretrial and post-trial motions, the trial transcript, and the trial exhibits, we find that no
arguable issue exists warranting reversal. We therefore affirm Brooks’s conviction and
sentence.
¶12. AFFIRMED.
BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND J. WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE,
WESTBROOKS, TINDELL, McDONALD, LAWRENCE AND C. WILSON, JJ.,
CONCUR.
4