Prepare a Case Brief on the provided judicial opinion regarding a criminal justice topic included below.You will prepare a Case Brief on the provided judicial opinion regarding a criminal justice topic included below , CAVITT v. STATE.
Case Brief Instructions
You will prepare a Case Brief on the provided judicial opinion regarding a criminal justice topic included below , CAVITT v. STATE. DO NOT USE INFORMATION FROM THE CASE BRIEF SAMPLE. The judicial opinion that you will prepare a Case Brief on can be found below. The Case Brief must include the following sections: Caption, Facts, Procedural History, Issue, Rule of Law, Holding, and Rationale. The Case Brief must be 1 page. A heading must be provided for each section of the Case Brief. Save your work as a Microsoft Word document and review the Sample Case Brief provided below.
CAVITT v. STATE Miss. 1199 Cite as 159 So.3d 1199 (Miss.App. 2015) preme court’s notation in Bounds, Bounds asserts that the judge, not the jury, set his sentence at life in prison. Id. Hence, he claims that the imposition of a life sentence by the circuit court judge created an illegal sentence that defeats the statute of limitations on his appeal. ¶ 3. In its order dated January 7, 2014, the circuit court summarily dismissed Bounds’s PCR motion—in part because Bounds failed to seek leave from the supreme court to file the PCR motion and in part because the circuit court found that his case is not excepted from the statute of limitations. On January 21, 2014, Bounds, having reviewed the circuit court’s order, filed a motion for leave from the supreme court to proceed with his PCR motion. On January 27, 2014, Bounds filed the instant appeal. Nonetheless, on June 25, 2014, the supreme court denied Bounds’s request for leave, stating: In the application for leave before this panel, Bounds merely states that his sentence was illegal. He offers no argument and does not support his contention. Bounds’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court, and the mandate issued in 1972. Accordingly, we find that Bounds has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a state or federal right, and his application for leave should be dismissed as timebarred. Despite the supreme court’s denial of Bounds’s motion for leave to proceed with his PCR motion, Bounds has continued in his appeal of the matter. DISCUSSION [1, 2] ¶ 4. Mississippi law requires that a movant must obtain permission from the supreme court to file a PCR motion in a circuit court if the movant’s conviction has been affirmed by the appellate court on direct appeal or if the direct appeal has been dismissed. Miss.Code Ann. § 99–39– 7 (Supp.2014). ‘‘This procedure is not merely advisory, but jurisdictional.’’ Bownes v. State, 963 So.2d 1277, 1278 (¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (citation omitted). We have consistently held that when a movant fails to obtain the requisite permission from the supreme court, all other courts lack the jurisdiction necessary to review the movant’s PCR motion. See Doss v. State, 757 So.2d 1016, 1017 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct. App.2000); Bownes, 963 So.2d at 1279 (¶ 4). Accordingly, both the circuit court and this Court are without jurisdiction to review Bounds’s appeal. As such, we dismiss Bounds’s case. ¶ 5. THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO JONES COUNTY. LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR. , Derome M. CAVITT a/k/a Derome Cavitt, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee. No. 2013–KA–01890–COA. Court of Appeals of Mississippi. March 24, 2015. Background: Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Rankin County, William E. Chapman III, J., of burglary of a dwelling. Defendant appealed. 1200 Miss. 159 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 3d SERIES Holding: The Court of Appeals, James, J., held that evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant’s fingerprint was left at the time the apartment was burglarized, supporting his conviction. Affirmed. 1. Criminal Law O753.2(3.1), 977(4) A motion for a directed verdict and a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) both challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. 2. Criminal Law O753.2(6, 8), 977(4) When considering a motion for a directed verdict and a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 3
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH NURSING HOMEWORK HELP TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT
