IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2018-KA-00274-COA WILLIAM GRADY A/K/A WILLIAM LEE GRADY APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/29/2017 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JON MARK W EATHERS COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: FORREST COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: MOLLIE MARIE McMILLIN ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: KATY TAYLOR GERBER SCOTT STUART DISTRICT ATTORNEY: PATRICIA A. THOMAS BURCHELL NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/02/2019 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE J. WILSON, P.J., GREENLEE AND McCARTY, JJ. GREENLEE, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. A jury in the Forrest County Circuit Court convicted W illiam Grady o f possession of

a weapon by

a convicted f

elon in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-37-5 (Rev. 2014). The trial court sentenced Grady to ten y ears, with f i ve y ears t o be served in the custody of the M ississippi Departm ent of Corrections (MDOC) a n d f i ve y ears suspended
p u r s u a n t to and in conf

orm ity with post-release supervision. T he trial court also order e d Grady to pay a $500 f

ine, a $200 assessm ent to the Mississippi Crim e Victim Com pensation Program , $1,000 i n restitution to the Forrest County Public Def

e nders’ Fund, and all courtcosts.

¶2. Grady f

iled a m otion f

or a new trial o r f

or a j u d g m e n t n o t w ithstanding the verdict (JNOV), which w as denied, and he appealed. The O f f ice o f S tate Public Def

ender, Indigent Appeals Division, f

iled a Lindsey brief certif y ing th a t t h e r e are no arguable claim s to be raised on appeal. 1 Although this Court granted Grady a d d i t i o n a l tim e t o f i le a pro se supplem ental b r ief

, Grady did not f

ile one. Af

ter an independent r eview of the record, we agree with Grady ’s counsel. W e af f irm Grady ’s judgm ent of

conviction and sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3. The F orrest County Sherif f ’s Departm ent sea r c h e d G r a d y ’ s h o m e in Hattiesburg pursuant to a search warrant related to a drug sale. Deputy Raf ael Bailey f

ound a pink .380- caliber Ruger gun inside Grady ’s bedroo m, l y i n g at the head of the bed. Deputy Bailey testif i ed that the gun w as loaded and was within arm ’s reach of any one ly i ng in the bed. The
g u n h a d been reported stolen f rom Harrison County and w as t urned over to the Harrison County Sherif

f ’s Departm ent. Gra d y was arrested and charged f or possession of the gun af ter law enf

orcem ent of

f icers determ ined that he was a convicted f elon.
DISCUSSION ¶4. W h en appellate counsel determ ines that the r e c o r d s h o w s n o a p p e a l a b le issues, counsel m

ust f ollow the procedures outlined in L indsey : (1) Counsel m

ust f ile and serve a brief in com pliance with Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(1)-[ (5), (8)]. (2) As part of the brief f

iled in com

pliance with Rule 28, counsel m ust certif y

1 S ee L in d s ey v. S ta te , 9 3 9 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 (M i ss. 2 0 0 5 ). 2that there are no arguable i ssues supporting the client’s appeal, a nd he or s he

has reached t his conclusion af ter scouring the r ecord thoroughly , s pecif i cally exam ining: (a) the reason f

o r the arrest and the circum stances surrounding arrest; (b) any possible violations of

the client’s right to counsel; (c) the entire trial transcript; (d) all rulings of

the trial court; (e) possible prosecutorial m i sconduct; (f ) all jury instructions; (g) all exhibits, whether adm itted into evidence or not; and (h) possible m isapplication of the law in sentencing. (3) Counsel m

ust then send a c opy of the appellate b r ief t o the def endant, inf orm the client t hat counsel could f i nd no arguable issues i n the record, and advise the client of

his or her right to f

ile a pro se brief

. (4) Should the def

endant then raise any arguable i ssue o r should the appellate court d i s c o v e r a n y arguable issue in its review of t he record, t he c ourt m ust, if circums t a n c e s warrant, require appellate counsel to subm i t supplem ental brief ing on the issue, regardless of the probability of the def endant’s success on appeal. (5) Once brief

ing is com p lete, the appellate court m u st consider the case on its m erits and render a decision.
Moore v. S

tate , 119 So. 3d 1116, 1118-19 (¶10) (Miss. C t. App. 2013) (quoting Lindsey , 939 So. 2d at 748 (¶18)). ¶5. Grady ’s attorney c om plied with Lindsey ’s requirem ents. Af ter exam ining the record, she f ound no a rguable appellate issues. Grady ’s c ounsel then s ent a copy of t he Lindsey brief

to Grady , advising h im that, while she f ound no arguable issues, Grady had the right to f ile

3a pro se supplem ental brief

. Although this Court granted Grady additional tim e f

or him to do so, Grady opted n ot t o f ile one. Af

ter review of t he record, w e f ind no arguable issues that would require supplem ental brief i ng. Based on our review, Grady ’s c onviction and sentence should be af

f irm e d. W e thus af

f irm

. ¶6. AFFIRMED. BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND J. W ILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS , T I N D E L L , M c D O N A L D , L A W R E N C E , M c C A R T Y A N D C . W I L S O N , J J . , C O N C U R .

4