344 So.3d 310
Miss. Ct. App.2022Background
- In February 2018, shots were fired at Jeremy Jones in Greenville; Jones was wounded and hospitalized (paralyzed from the waist down).
- Lonnie Nalls Jr. and Lamarcus Ware were indicted for attempted murder; Nalls also charged with possession of a firearm by a felon and as a violent habitual offender.
- First trial (Oct. 2020) ended in a hung jury; second trial (Apr. 2021) produced convictions based primarily on eyewitness testimony from Jeremy Jones and Brian Ledlow and police testimony about their identifications.
- Ware pled guilty to aggravated assault, testified at Nalls’s second trial that he acted alone, but admitted his plea accepted that he acted in concert with someone.
- Nalls stipulated to a prior felony and was sentenced as a violent habitual offender to two consecutive life terms without parole; post-trial motions and appeal issues included timeliness, admission of prior-inconsistent testimony, judicial bias, sentencing, ineffective assistance, and weight of the evidence.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed convictions, declined to find reversible error, and dismissed some ineffective-assistance claims without prejudice for post-conviction proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / Timeliness of appeal | Nalls did not explicitly justify late filings; sought review of trial errors | State did not challenge timeliness | Court suspended deadlines under M.R.A.P. 2(c) and addressed merits despite untimely notice of appeal |
| Pro se brief procedural defects | Nalls raised multiple issues and facts from first trial | Appellate rules require pro se brief to follow formatting and record limits | Court found many pro se arguments procedurally barred for noncompliance and for relying on first-trial matters not in the second-trial record |
| Admission of Ledlow’s inconsistent testimony | Nalls argued Ledlow contradicted his first-trial testimony (darkness, identification) | State relied on contemporaneous testimony; no contemporaneous objection at trial | Court held failure to contemporaneously object waived the claim; no reversible error |
| Alleged judicial bias | Nalls claimed judge made biased remarks (no record citation) | No record support; appellate review confined to record | Court declined to consider the claim for lack of record evidence |
| Sentencing as violent habitual offender | Nalls argued prior convictions (robbery/burglary) shouldn’t qualify for violent-offender enhancement | State asserted enhancement applies to recent crimes and prior felonies can be used for recidivist sentencing | Court held enhancement lawful; prior felonies may be used and statute applies as a stiffened penalty, not ex post facto punishment |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Nalls alleged counsel failed to object, cross-examine, and challenge witnesses’ ability to see; claimed counsel lied and underperformed | State (and record) showed counsel cross-examined witnesses and explored lighting; appellate counsel did not represent at trial | Court applied Strickland; denied claims where record showed adequate performance, dismissed other ineffective-assistance claims without prejudice for PCRR |
| Weight of the evidence | Nalls argued verdict against overwhelming weight; State allegedly failed to link him to vehicle/firearm | State presented eyewitness identifications (Jones, Ledlow) and police testimony; argued jury resolves credibility | Court held verdicts were not so contrary to overwhelming evidence as to be unconscionable; affirmed convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Tingle v. State, 285 So. 3d 708 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (appellate jurisdiction and timeliness principles)
- Birkhead v. State, 57 So. 3d 1223 (Miss. 2011) (need for contemporaneous objection to preserve error)
- Moffite v. State, 309 So. 3d 529 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (use of prior felonies for habitual-offender sentencing and ex post facto discussion)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-part test)
- Grace v. State, 281 So. 3d 986 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (standard for disturbing a verdict as against the overwhelming weight of the evidence)
- Kirk v. State, 160 So. 3d 685 (Miss. 2015) (weight-of-evidence standard)