Title: Sandoval v. State

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

631 So. 2d 159 (1994) Francisco Garza SANDOVAL v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 90-KA-1334. Supreme Court of Mississippi. January 20, 1994. Jimmy D. McGuire, McGuire & Cox, Gulfport, for appellant. Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Wayne Snuggs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, Ellen Y. Dale, Ridgeland, for appellee. En Banc. DAN M. LEE, Presiding Justice, for the Court: Francisco Garza Sandoval appeals his Circuit Court of Harrison County conviction in absentia of the felony possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. We must decide if an accused felon waives his presence at trial by his failure to appear at the beginning and at any other stage of the trial within the meaning of Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-17-9 (1972). Sandoval claims the trial court erred in denying a motion for continuance and in proceeding to trial in his absence. He contends the circuit judge erroneously concluded that he voluntarily absented himself from the scheduled trial and thereby waived his appearance. We conclude that the trial court erroneously held that Sandoval was "in custody and consenting" to trial in absentia and reverse. Magnum, a narcotics dog with the Harrison County Sheriff's Department, located 76 pounds of marijuana in a warrantless search of Francisco Garza Sandoval's automobile. Sandoval was driving his station wagon, licensed in the State of Texas, on Interstate Highway 10 when he was stopped for speeding by Harrison County Deputy Sheriff Victor Smith. At trial the marijuana was received in evidence based upon Smith's uncontradicted testimony that Sandoval consented to the search after the patrolman had told him that he had a right to refuse. Sandoval, following arrest, was released on a $50,000 appearance bond, however, he was not present on the day of the trial and was tried in absentia. Four days after the trial and his conviction, Sandoval appeared and was sentenced to a term of fifteen (15) years under the supervision of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and fined $10,000. Sandoval's contentions on appeal are as follows: We have considered all contentions and conclude that the trial court's holding that Sandoval was theoretically "in custody" and consenting to trial in absentia by failure to appear is error requiring reversal. Our reversal and discussion is limited to Issue (1) as it is dispositive. Sandoval appeared at a preliminary hearing and was in his attorney's office involved in trial preparation the day before the trial. When Sandoval failed to appear the morning of trial, his attorney moved for a continuance of one week. The circuit judge ruled Sandoval had waived his appearance; denied the motion; forfeited the appearance bond; entered a judgment nisi against the bond sureties; directed the clerk to issue a capias to bring him before the court; and proceeded with the trial. While taking up last minute matters before jury empanelment on Wednesday morning, December 3, 1990, counsel for Sandoval announced to the court that his client was not present. Counsel stated that Sandoval was present for pre-trial motions on Monday, December 1. Sandoval's attorney also informed the court that Sandoval met with him until 5:15 p.m. on Tuesday, December 2, and was informed by him to return to his office no later than 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday morning. Counsel informed the court that Sandoval did not appear in his office on Wednesday morning and that, as of 10:15 a.m., neither he nor Sandoval's bondsman had been able to locate Sandoval. Sandoval's attorney announced the defense was not ready for trial and moved for a one-week continuance to enable the attorney to locate Sandoval. The State announced it was ready for trial and objected to the motion for continuance on the grounds that Sandoval knew of the Wednesday trial date and "voluntarily absented" himself. The trial court, following the "guidelines" in Samuels v. State, 567 So. 2d 843 (Miss. 1990), concluded: The circuit judge then overruled the motion for a continuance and proceeded to try Samuels in absentia. Sandoval contends he was prejudiced by trial in absentia as follows: (1) He was not present to explain what he meant in custodial statements admitted in evidence; (2) He was not present to deny knowledge that the marijuana was present in the vehicle to contradict State's constructive possession theory; and (3) He was not present to demonstrate his inability to speak English to contradict State's claim that he knowingly consented to the search. For over 145 years this Court has recognized that an accused felon, present at the commencement of his trial, may thereafter waive his presence by absenting himself from the trial. Some of these decisions came before the 1857 passage of what is now Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-17-9 (1972) (unchanged since 1857): Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-17-9 (1972) provides: This Court in Samuels interpreted this law to permit trial of Samuels in absentia on these facts: Samuels, 567 So. 2d at 844-45. These significantly different facts are present in this case. Sandoval did not appear at the commencement or at any other stage of the trial. The defense did not announce ready for trial. Defense counsel's motion for a trial continuance of one week was overruled and the trial was conducted as scheduled without Sandoval's presence. This Court ruled that Samuels had waived his presence at trial and cited this rule as *162 authority but went on to interpret "in custody" to include an accused felon while released on a "recognizance bond." Id. The settled law of this state supported the waiver on the particular facts in Samuels. Resorting to the "general law" proposition in 8 Am.Jur.2d Bail and Recognizance, § 4 at 581-583 (1980) that "constructive custody" is sufficient to satisfy the "in custody" statutory requirement. A review of some of those decisions follows: Scaggs v. State, 16 Miss. 722, 725 (1847). "[I]t does not appear that the prisoner was present during the whole of the trial of the indictment." The Court concluded that error existed and reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. Price v. State, 36 Miss. 531 (1858). Price's felony conviction was affirmed although he was absent from the courtroom when the jury returned the verdict. Price was present in court during the trial until the case was submitted to the jury. This case was decided before the adoption of the statute under examination. The Court reasoned: Id. at 542-43. The Court ruled Price had waived his right to be present at that stage of the trial. Stubbs v. State, 49 Miss. 716 (1874). Stubbs was convicted of murder and on appeal he claimed he was not present in court when the jury returned the verdict. The Court reversed the conviction and held: Id. at 724. The Court noted the distinction in the rule between felonies and misdemeanors and concluded "[T]he better opinion is, that the rule should be adhered to in felonies from the arraignment to the final sentence." Id. The opinion made no reference to the statute in question which became law in 1857. In Gales v. State, 64 Miss. 105, 106, 8 So. 167 (1886), the opinion recites: Id. at 107, 8 So. 167. The Court ruled: Id. Chief Justice Whitfield, writing for the Court in Sherrod v. State, 93 Miss. 774, 47 So. 554, 555 (1908), which reversed a capital conviction, restated the applicable law: 47 So. at 555. As reasons supporting that conclusion, that Court stated: 47 So. at 557. Thomas v. State, 117 Miss. 532, 78 So. 147 (1918). Thomas voluntarily left the courtroom and went to the toilet, remaining for about ten minutes outside the courtroom. During that time, two jurors were examined. Upon conviction, Thomas claimed that this trial proceeding in his absence violated his constitutional right to be heard and to be present at his trial, a right given by the common law, and guaranteed by Mississippi Constitution Article 3, Section 26. The Court noted that for over a quarter of a century, no mention had been made of the statute here in question. In interpreting the waiver statute, the Court concluded: Id. at 542, 78 So. 147. Applying the statute, the Court held "that [Thomas] was in custody and waived his right to be present in this case when he voluntarily left the courtroom and remained away from his trial for a few minutes." Id. at 543, 78 So. 147. Thomas' absence was not timely raised by counsel. The Court also noted there was no showing that the accused was harmed or prejudiced by his absence from the courtroom and concluded, unless there is a showing of a substantial injustice, such error did not justify reversal. In Ford v. State, 170 Miss. 459, 155 So. 220 (1934), this Court affirmed Ford's murder conviction finding no prejudice shown by his absence when he was in custody in the county jail during the drawing of a special venire. Ford was brought to the courtroom within fifteen minutes thereafter. The Court concluded Ford had voluntarily waived his presence to that stage of the trial under the statute when defense counsel, without objection, proceeded in Ford's absence. The Court recognized that since the Thomas decision, the statute had been made applicable in capital cases also. In Jones v. State, 204 Miss. 284, 37 So. 2d 311 (1948), the Court noted: Id. at 286, 37 So. 2d 311. The Court held: Id. In McMillian v. State, 361 So. 2d 495 (Miss. 1978), McMillian was present when his trial began and when the jury was examined, selected and sworn. Following the lunch break when court reconvened, McMillian was not present. The trial court continued the trial in McMillian's absence over defense counsel's objection and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. On appeal, this Court ruled McMillian, by his absence after trial had begun, had waived his presence as permitted by the statute in question and affirmed the conviction. McMillian is authority for application of the statutory waiver when an accused felon is present at the beginning of trial but is absent from the trial thereafter. The United States Supreme Court has strictly construed Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 43 which permits trial of accused felons in absentia. Recently, the United States Supreme Court in Crosby v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 748, 122 L. Ed. 2d 25 (1993), resolved the conflict among the federal courts of appeal on the application of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 43 and concluded: Id. at ___, 113 S. Ct. at 753. The Court reversed Crosby's conviction in absentia of mail fraud and remanded it for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-17-9 (1972) clearly states the waiver rule in felony cases "if he be in custody and consenting thereto" and then makes an exception for misdemeanors. Only in discussing "cases less than felony" does the statute permit trial in absentia of defendant "on recognizance or bail." This statute, unchanged since 1857, expresses the legislative intent to limit waiver of trial presence of accused felons to those instances where the accused is "in custody and consenting thereto." The decisions of this Court prior to Samuels consistently applied the rule that an accused felon present at the commencement of his trial may thereafter waive his appearance by absenting himself from the trial. Under those facts, the trial may be continued in the Court's discretion. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion by trying Sandoval in absentia on the facts of this case. The conviction of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and sentence of fifteen years under the supervision of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and a $10,000 fine is reversed and remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND THIS CASE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY FOR A NEW TRIAL. HAWKINS, C.J., and SULLIVAN, PITTMAN and BANKS, JJ., concur. McRAE, J., concurs in results only. SMITH, J., dissents with separate written opinion joined by PRATHER, P.J., and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., J. *165 SMITH, Justice, dissenting: The majority concludes the trial court abused its discretion by trying Sandoval in absentia on the facts of this case. They write that Miss. Code Ann. § 99-17-9 (1972) clearly states the waiver rule in felony cases "if he be in custody and consenting thereto" and then makes an exception for misdemeanors. The majority then states "[o]nly in discussing `cases less than felony' does the statute permit trial in absentia of defendant `on recognizance or bail.'" They believe the statute to be unchanged since 1857, and that it "expresses the legislative intent to limit waiver of trial presence of accused felons to those instances where the accused is `in custody and consenting thereto.'" The majority states that Sandoval appeared at a preliminary hearing, was in his attorney's office involved in trial preparation the day before the trial, and just subsequently later failed to appear for trial. A review of the record fails to fully support these allegations. In fact, Sandoval's preliminary hearing was on February 8, 1990, some ten months prior to the time of trial. The record reveals Sandoval attended that hearing. Sandoval was allowed to post a sizable surety bond returnable to December 3, 1990. The record also reveals that Sandoval was present in court on December 3rd, and 4th. Sandoval's attorney advised the trial judge that Sandoval had been in his office as late as 5:15 p.m. on December 4th, preparing for trial due to commence on December 5th. Sandoval's attorney advised the trial judge that he personally told Sandoval to return to his office at 8:00 a.m. on the morning of December 5, 1990, to conclude final preparations and to be present in the court for motions which were set for a hearing prior to trial. The majority fails to acknowledge that this case, according to the trial record, was actually set for trial on December 3, 1990. Sandoval had been initially released on a fifty-thousand dollar ($50,000) bond. Sandoval and witnesses had travelled from his home in Brownsville, Texas, for the second time concerning his case. Sandoval was physically present in the courtroom, receiving instructions from the trial court on the two days preceding the actual commencement of his trial. Sandoval was well aware that his case was second up and would be tried after the other case was disposed of on Tuesday, December 4, 1990. The majority implies that they are either overruling Samuels v. State, 567 So. 2d 843 (Miss. 1990), or that they are simply distinguishing Samuels factually from the case at bar. I perceive that they are attempting to effectively overrule Samuels. Their language of "unnecessary and erroneous" relating to "in custody," clearly indicates that the objective of the opinion is to overrule Samuels. They are doing so at the expense of the trial judge who asserted that he was following the Samuels ruling of this Court and applying it to the facts of this case. I would submit that this sends a message of inconsistency to our trial judges who diligently strive to conduct trials in accordance with the guidelines we mandate within our decisions in this particular case, Samuels. The majority recites that for over 145 years this Court has recognized that an accused felon, present at the commencement of his trial, may thereafter waive his presence by absenting himself from the trial. They are correct. However, I fail to see a tremendous difference in a defendant's absenting himself during substantive portions of the trial versus his being absent at commencement of trial. Sandoval's initial presence on December 3, 1990, the date trial was originally set to begin, serves to assure that any waiver on his part is indeed knowing and voluntary. Any defendant who flees subsequent to being present initially and being fully informed as was Sandoval, should never be allowed to successfully claim involuntariness, thus effectively avoiding waiver. Allowing a defendant with the knowledge Sandoval possessed, under the facts of this particular case, to receive the benefit of a new trial, effectively makes a mockery of the requirements of bail and the entire criminal justice system. Sandoval without any explanation of his voluntary absence from his actual trial proceedings has "side stepped" the system. In accordance with this Court's decision in Samuels, he should not be allowed to prevail as the majority suggests. *166 This Court in Samuels interpreted Miss. Code Ann. § 99-17-9 to permit trial of Samuels in absentia. The Court stated: 567 So. 2d at 845-846. Payment by sureties of a judgment nisi on a bond would never suffice to discharge a defendant from his obligation to appear in court. Bail is simply a means of requiring, by court order, a defendant to submit to trial and punishment if convicted. A defendant is most definitely in custody and under the jurisdiction of the trial court while on bail. Finally in Samuels, this Court addressed the issue of voluntary absence. The Court stated: "It is undisputed that Samuels' absence from the court was voluntary. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, he waived his right to be present at trial." Id. at 846, citing McMillian v. State, 361 So. 2d 495 (Miss. 1978); Thomas v. State, 117 Miss. 532, 543, 78 So. 147, 149 (1918). Relying upon Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 32 S. Ct. 250, 56 L. Ed. 500 (1912), this Court further held in Samuels: Id. at 846 (quoting Brewer v. Raines, 670 F.2d 117, 119 (9th Cir.1982). In the case sub judice, Sandoval appeared in the courtroom on the date the case was set for trial. He was well informed by the trial judge of the status of the proceedings in his case, when the actual pre-trial hearings would occur and when the actual trial would begin. His attorney properly instructed him on dates, times and places to be regarding his trial. However, for some reason, Sandoval voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings the morning of his trial. This choice was made of his own free will and volition. No explanation by Sandoval for his actions was ever furnished the trial court in a Motion JNOV, Motion for A New Trial, or supplement to the record. Neither is this Court furnished with an explanation for Sandoval's absence. This Court in Samuels pointed out that a defendant's absence from any critical stage in proceedings against him will not violate his constitutional rights as long as he is represented by counsel. Sandoval was represented by counsel at all stages of his trial. The exception to the above rule is when defendant's presence is necessary to prevent prejudice against him. 567 So. 2d at 845, citing Caldwell v. State, 481 So. 2d 850, 852 (Miss. 1985). The Court went on to rule, however, that because the defendant had executed a *167 recognizance bond which would require him to appear in court, he was "in custody" within the meaning of § 99-17-9, and, further, that because his absence from the court was voluntary, he had waived his right to be present at the trial. Id. at 845-846. Sandoval chose to be absent from his trial, and cannot now claim that he did not have an opportunity to put on a defense to the State's case-in-chief. He has not demonstrated any prejudice nor has he demonstrated how his absence denied him a fair trial. The majority relies on the recent United States Supreme Court case of Crosby v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 748, 122 L. Ed. 2d 25 (1993), claiming that it resolved the conflict among the federal courts of appeal on the application of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 43, holding that the rule prohibits trial in absentia. Crosby's conviction was accordingly reversed. However, the majority in the case sub judice fails to take note that Mississippi has no Rule 43. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court in Crosby, specifically stated that, "We do not reach Crosby's claim that his trial in absentia was also prohibited by the Constitution." Id. at ___, 113 S. Ct. at 753. Since Crosby was not based on any constitutional issue, that case has no application in interpreting Mississippi statutory law. The Samuels Court's interpretation of § 99-17-9 is still valid. The recent 1990 decision of this Court in Samuels with Chief Justice Roy Noble Lee writing for the Court was unanimous. Five members of the Samuels Court are still members of this Court. A scant three years later the majority, some of whom concurred with Samuels, now aver that the Court did not mean what it said in Samuels. Confusion abounds and consistency goes out the window. Our trial judges deserve a better road map to follow in conducting trials. I respectfully dissent. PRATHER, P.J., and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., J., join this opinion.