Blanchard v. State
2011 Miss. LEXIS 137
| Miss. | 2011

Background

  • Blanchard was convicted of armed robbery after a jury trial conducted in his absence.
  • The crime occurred at Terrific Tax in Aberdeen, Mississippi, where approximately $5,000 in cash was stolen during a robbery by two youths.
  • Mary Minor, a juvenile accomplice, testified and identified Blanchard as the robber; she initially claimed Blanchard as her accomplice.
  • Blanchard claimed he was in Tupelo with his girlfriend at the time of the robbery; hospital surveillance later contradicted this claim.
  • Blanchard was represented by a public defender; at trial, counsel did not request a continuance or object to the defendant’s absence.
  • The trial court sentenced Blanchard to 50 years’ imprisonment, with various costs and fees.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether trial in absentia was plain error Blanchard argues absence violated rights and required reversal. State contends absence was voluntary and allowed by statute given bail status. No plain error; absence was not shown involuntary.
Ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal Counsel failed to request continuance and object to hearsay. Record insufficient to assess effectiveness; best raised in post-conviction. Claims reserved for post-conviction relief; not addressed on direct appeal.
Weight of the evidence Descrip­tions did not match Blanchard; little physical evidence Credibility of key witnesses supported by corroborating IDs and testimony Evidence supports the verdict; not against the weight of the evidence.

Key Cases Cited

  • Brown v. State, 995 So. 2d 698 (Miss. 2008) (plain-error standard for trial defects)
  • Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970) (right to be present at trial)
  • Corbin v. State, 55 So. 3d 43 (Miss. 1911) (presence rights under Mississippi constitution)
  • Jay v. State, 25 So. 3d 257 (Miss. 2010) (willful absence supports absentia trial)
  • Ali v. State, 928 So. 2d 237 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (defendant’s comprehension of trial timing relevant to presence)
  • Archer v. State, 986 So. 2d 951 (Miss. 2008) (ineffective-assistance claims generally post-conviction)
  • Read v. State, 430 So. 2d 832 (Miss. 1983) (post-conviction relief for ineffectiveness claims)
  • Havard v. State, 928 So. 2d 771 (Miss. 2006) (direct-appeal review limits for ineffectiveness)
  • Moore v. State, 933 So. 2d 910 (Miss. 2006) (weight-of-the-evidence standard; limited physical evidence not determinative)
  • Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (thirteenth juror approach to weighing evidence)
  • Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948 (Miss. 1997) (thirteenth juror standard context)
  • Harris v. State, 970 So. 2d 151 (Miss. 2007) (weight-of-the-evidence framework)
  • McQueen v. State, 423 So.2d 800 (Miss. 1982) (weights and standards for reversal)
  • Moore v. State (duplicate for emphasis), 933 So.2d 910 (Miss. 2006) (see above)
Read the full case