Patton v. State, 109 So. 3d 66

Patton, unlicensed, acted as attorney for Dixon and Rias in Winston County, filing pleadings under another attorney's name and bar number.
Indictment charged one count of false pretense and four counts of fraudulent use of identifying information; disputes arose over the $500 threshold and dates.
Judge Vollor was appointed as special judge after prior judges recused; Patton sought to represent himself and underwent Rule 8.05 competency inquiry.
During trial, Patton subpoenaed witnesses including the DA and Rias; Evans was excused after Patton declined to reveal defense needs; Rias testified for the State.
The State amended counts (notably Count I to attempt to commit false pretense; dates in Counts IV–V adjusted); Patton's motions were denied and he was convicted on all counts with consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ex parte communications and recusal	Patton argues improper earwigging biased the proceeding.	Vollor biased; should have recused due to communications.	No reversible error; records show administrative communications, not improper ex parte contact; recusal rightly denied.
Indictment amendments proper	Amendments to Count I and date changes were substantive and prejudicial.	Amendments were form-only and not prejudicial; allowed under rule.	Amendments were proper form changes; did not prejudice defense.
Sixth Amendment right to counsel at critical stages	Patton was deprived of counsel at all critical stages.	No specific critical stage identified with inadequate representation.	Issue forfeited for lack of specific argument and record citations; not addressed on merits.
Rule 8.05 examination and self-incrimination	Educational questions coercively elicited self-incrimination and biased the process.	Patton's Fifth Amendment rights violated by discovery-type questioning.	Not addressed on merits for lack of record/authority support.
Compulsory process and subpoenas	Patton was denied compulsory process when Evans was dismissed and Rias unavailable.	Patton failed to show colorable need for Evans; Rias testimony was not unavailable.	Circuit court did not abuse discretion; no colorable need shown for Evans; Rias not unavailable to compel.

Randolph v. State, 852 So.2d 547 (Miss.2002) (guide on preservation and argument adequacy)
Haddox v. State, 636 So.2d 1240 (Miss.1994) (issue preservation at trial)
Jones v. State, 841 So.2d 115 (Miss.2003) (standard for preserved arguments and authority)
Bailey v. State, 78 So.3d 308 (Miss.2012) (indictment and amendment considerations)
Goforth v. City of Ridgeland, 603 So.2d 323 (Miss.1992) (jurisdiction and record considerations)