135 So. 3d 148
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Lobo was stopped August 9, 2009 in Ridgeland after driving over a concrete median and running a red light; odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes observed; field sobriety tests indicated impairment and Lobo declined an Intoxilyzer; charged with DUI first offense, careless driving, and running a red light.
- Municipal court found Lobo guilty after a trial de novo in county court; sentence included fines and a 48-hour jail term with suspension after completing the MASEP program.
- Lobo filed a JNOV/alternative new trial motion; county court denied, and the circuit court affirmed.
- Lobo moved to strike the State’s appellate brief for untimeliness; the circuit court denied the motion and affirmed.
- Appellate court majority affirmations on all convictions; there is a separate dissent challenging the rulings and procedural handling of the State’s brief; issues on appeal centered on sufficiency of evidence and late brief filing.
- Procedural posture includes circuit court orders requesting timely State brief under Rule 31 and Rule 2; the State’s brief was filed late, but convictions were not reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for DUI, careless driving, and running a red light | Lobo argues JNOV should be granted due to insufficiency | State asserts substantial, credible evidence supports all elements | Sufficiency existed for all three offenses |
| Whether the State’s late appellate brief warranted striking the brief | Lobo contends untimely brief invalidates review | State argues failure to timely file does not require reversal; impact on public interests considered | Court refused to strike the State’s brief; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (requires reviewing court to view evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution for sufficiency of evidence)
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in Mississippi)
- In re Estate of Dabney, 69 So.3d 71 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate review of failure to timely file brief; discusses dismissal vs. other remedies)
- Chatman v. State, 761 So.2d 851 (Miss. 2000) (automatic reversal not required when appellee fails to file brief; can affirm with confidence)
- Sanders v. Chamblee, 819 So.2d 1275 (Miss. 2002) (public interest considerations in review of appeals involving the state)