Deionta Ivory v. State of Mississippi, 283 So.3d 108

Dec. 18, 2016: two teenagers (Slade and Burks) were accosted in an idling car; the assailant displayed a handgun, entered the back seat, demanded money, and directed the driver to stop at locations, ultimately leaving at a Chevron where the clerk called 911.
Victims identified Ivory in photo lineups days later and at trial; surveillance placed Ivory at a nearby supermarket (Food Giant) shortly before his arrest; officers found a replica 1911 pistol, a black puffy jacket, and a toboggan at Ivory’s residence.
Ivory was arrested at Food Giant the same evening; he admitted being in the area and to trips between locations that night, and marijuana was found on him.
Defense emphasized Ivory’s lifelong stutter (arguing the assailant did not stutter) and timeline/clothing inconsistencies to support misidentification.
At sentencing defense counsel made an ore tenus motion for JNOV (challenging the verdict); no written post-trial motion for a new trial was filed within ten days.
On appeal Ivory argued the verdicts were against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and, alternatively, that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not filing a written motion for new trial.

Issue	Ivory's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether verdicts were against the overwhelming weight of the evidence	Victims misidentified him; his stutter, timeline and clothing inconsistencies, and weapon ambiguities show conviction is an unconscionable injustice and warrant new trial	Victims immediately and consistently identified Ivory; surveillance, proximity, matching clothing, and seized replica pistol support the verdicts	Not preserved by proper post-trial motion; on the merits the evidence supports the convictions and does not preponderate against the verdicts
Whether an ore tenus JNOV motion can substitute for a written motion for new trial	The ore tenus JNOV challenged weight and should be treated as a new-trial motion	JNOV challenges legal sufficiency; new-trial claims (weight) require a written motion within ten days under MRCrP 25.1	Ore tenus JNOV cannot be recharacterized as a new-trial motion; Ivory failed to preserve a weight challenge
Whether counsel’s failure to file a written motion for new trial was ineffective assistance	Trial counsel’s omission was deficient and prejudiced the defense because a new-trial motion would likely succeed given alleged misidentification	Even if omission was deficient, there is no reasonable probability of a different outcome; no prejudice because evidence overwhelmingly supports verdicts	Counsel’s omission was deficient (Strickland prong 1) but produced no prejudice (prong 2); ineffective-assistance claim denied

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Kirk v. State, 160 So. 3d 685 (Miss. 2015) (distinguishing JNOV challenge from new‑trial (weight) challenge)
Daniels v. State, 107 So. 3d 961 (Miss. 2013) (JNOV tests legal sufficiency; new trial tests weight of evidence)
Parker v. State, 30 So. 3d 1222 (Miss. 2010) (failure to file a new‑trial motion can constitute deficient performance)
Woods v. State, 242 So. 3d 47 (Miss. 2018) (example where weight‑of‑evidence review would likely have led to a new trial)
Cooper v. Lawson, 264 So. 2d 890 (Miss. 1972) (verdict‑against‑weight claims must be presented to the trial judge via new‑trial motion to preserve review)