Markey J.Tanner vs State of Mississippi, No. 2020-CP-00123-COA (2022)

Story Of The Case:  On March 1, 2018, Markey Tanner pled guilty to two felonies; driving under the influence (DUI) causing disfigurement or death and leaving the scene of an accident. After accepting Tanner's guilty plea, the Trial Court sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison, with with ten years suspended and fifteen years to serve for his DUI conviction, and twenty years for his conviction of leaving the scene of an accident with five years of post-release supervision. The trial court ordered both sentences to run concurrently for a total of twenty years' incarceration and five years' post-release supervision.
The Defendant appealed the sentencing, alleging that his guilty plea was "involuntary entered".

Ruling By The Appeals Court:  The Appeals Court did not necessarily buy Defendant's argument that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered, even if one believed his assertion that his attorney promised him that his sentence would be no more than fifteen years total, with two years to serve and three years of post-release supervision.  The Appeals Court did rule, however, that he was at least entitled to a hearing on that issue, which the trial court refused to do.  As a result, the case was sent back to the trial court to have a hearing on whether his plea was involuntarily entered.      

Interesting Fact:  The Defendant's mother stated in an affidavit that she was standing in the hall outside the courtroom and heard his attorney make those representations to him.  What effect this had on the Appeals Court decision in unknown.

      Antionne Sellers vs State Of Mississsippi,  No. 2020-KM-00087-COA

Story Of The Case:  Around 9:00 at night an anonymous caller notified the Police Department of a reckless driver who had "run off the road."  After the officer found a car matching the description given, he followed it and eventually pulled him over for having a tag cover that obscured the tag's expiration date.  He failed the field sobriety tests given by the officer and later registered .12% on the Intoxylizer 8000.  (at least .08 % being the legal presumption for DUI).  The trial court found him guilty of DUI.

Ruling By The Appeals Court:    On appeal, the Defendant maintained that the officer lacked probable cause to stop him and thus the DUI charge should have been thrown out.  The Appeals Court disagreed, pointing out that the officer had the right to pull the Defendant over for the tag charge, and further, that the officer made other observations allowing him to charge the Defendant with DUI.

Interesting Fact:  The fact that the Defendant was not found guilty of the "improper display of tag" charge did not affect the DUI conviction.   

       Raymond Hughes vs State of Mississippi, NO. 2019-CP-01309-COA

Story Of The Case:  The Defendant on February 23, 2017 was indicted for felony DUI, Third Offense.  On June 7, 2018, he was indicted for felony DUI, Fourth Offense.  Prior to 2017 he was convicted of DUI in June, 2008, (in Utah), December 18, 2012, (Mississippi), and April 16, 2013, (Mississippi).  The Defendant appealed his conviction by the trial court for a 4th DUI, alleging that the indictment of June 7, 2018 was defective.

Ruling By The Appeals Court:  The Appeals Court agreed with the Defendant that his conviction for DUI, 4th offense, should be vacated, as the State could not use his 2008 Conviction in Utah as one of the three "prior" DUIs to charge him with a 4th.  This was because Mississippi Code Annot. Section 63-11-30 (7) prohibits use of an out of state conviction over five (5) years old. 

Interesting Fact:  Although the conviction was vacated by the Court, he was not out of the woods,  The Appeals Court sent it back to the Trial Court to either charge him differently or amend the indictment.    

       Nikolas Johnson vs State of Mississippi, NO. 2019-KM-01853-COA

Story Of The Case:  The Defendant was arrested for Reckless Driving and DUI. He was observed by an officer on another traffic hitting stop to be speeding "well above" the posted speed limit and weaving between lanes.  A subsequent test showed that his blood alcohol concentration was above 0.13%.  The Defendant appealed the conviction, maintaining that when the officer took his keys, he was "in custody" and thus should have been given "Miranda" warnings before admitted anything. He had admitted at the stop that he had been drinking vodka and sprite and "should not have been driving".  

Ruling By The Appeals Court:  The Court rejected the Defendant's premise, stating that it has repeatedly been held in Mississippi that a person is not "in custody" during an ordinary traffic stop, so the officer did not have to give the Miranda warnings.  

Interesting Fact:  At the police department itself, the Defendant argued with the officer about why he was stopped, eventually telling the officer to "shut the f*** up."  I'm sure he did not help himself with the Trial Court in that regard.