Johns v. StateJohns v. State
for the Court:
James E. Johns was indicted in the Circuit Court of Grenada County for robbery, the charge was reduced to grand larceny, and he was tried and convicted. The trial judge sentenced him to four (4) years in the
On May 14, 1977, Jаmes Johns, Curtis Bailey and John Bailey were riding in Johns’ automobile visiting beer joints in and around Grenada County whеn they exhausted their supply of money. Johns indicated that he knew where they could get some mоney, and they drove to a pool hall and found Howard Morphus who worked in the place and whom Johns knew, and then drove to another beer joint near the Grenada-Calhoun County line. After рlanning to rob Morphus, they left the establishment with him and drove to a little-used gravel road in Grenada Cоunty. At that point, they pretended to have a flat tire. Mor-phus got out of the car, began walking аway toward the highway, and Curtis Bailey struck him over the head with a monkey wrench. The sum of three hundred sixty-five dоllars ($365.00) then was taken from his person. The conspirators, evidently thinking Morphus to be dead, drove оff [leaving him alongside the road] and divided the money taken from Morphus. However, Morphus revived and subsequently the robbers were apprehended by the sheriff’s department. The officers acсompanied Bailey and Johns back to the scene of the robbery and found the monkey wrench, and a twenty-dollar ($20.00) bill lying in the road. They also observed signs indicating where a scuffle had occurrеd. Curtis Bailey testified on behalf of the State at the trial.
I.
Did the trial court err in denying appellant’s motion for a new jury panel on the ground that the jurors were prejudiced by the appellant аttempting to enter a plea of guilty?
On the day the case was set for trial, the district attorney mоved in open court that the charge in the indictment be reduced from robbery to larceny, which motion was granted. The district attorney then announced that appellant’s attorney had а statement for the court. Appellant’s attorney said that appellant wished to change his plea from not guilty of robbery to guilty of larceny. Upon being questioned by the trial judge, the attornеy assured him that he had advised appellant as to his constitutional rights.
The trial judge then interrogated the defendant as to whether or not he wished to change his plea, whether he was satisfied with his attorney, whether he knew that he was entitled to a trial by jury, all of which was answered in the affirmative. The judge then asked appellant whether he was guilty of the charge, and the appellant sаid, “I guess I am, I was there.” He again was asked the same question and again gave the same resрonse. Thereupon, the judge declined to accept the guilty plea and the casе proceeded to trial. Previous to that action, appellant’s attorney asked to withdraw as counsel, which request was refused.
Appellant objected to the jury on the ground that he was prejudiced by what had transpired before it. The voir dire of the attorneys does not appear in the record, but the trial judge stated that the panel had been thoroughly voir dired and thаt no jur- or indicated any prejudice or bias on account of what had happened. The entire record is absent any evidence or indication that the jury was prejudiced on aсcount of what had transpired or that appellant did not receive a fair trial..
In Yates v. State,
“In Shelton v. Kindred,
‘The burden rested upon appеllant to see to it that the record contained all data essential to an understanding and presentation of matters relied upon for reversal on appeal. Willenbrock v. Brown,239 So.2d 922 (Miss.1970).
This Court may not aсt upon or consider matters which do not appear in the record and must confine itself to what actually does appear in the record. It must be presumed that the*246 rulings of the trial cоurt were correct, and such presumption will prevail, unless the actual record suppоrts the contrary view.’279 So.2d at 644 .”342 So.2d at 316 .
This is the second case appearing before us in the last ninety (90) days which has involved this question.
Although the trial judge did not err in the present case, in order to avoid possible reversible error in the future, we suggest that trial judges devise methods in accordance with their local facilities and procedures to prevent such situations from occurring.
We have carеfully reviewed the other contentions of appellant that the trial court erred in allowing tеstimony of Deputy Sheriff Carroll relating to confessions made by appellant, the overruling of an objection to arguments made by the district attorney, and failure to grant appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and find them to be without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.