IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2016-KA-01066-COA JASPRELL DILLARD APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/21/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ALBERT B. SMITH III COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: BOLIVAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: W . DANIEL HINCHCLIFF ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: BRENDA FAY MITCHELL NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/12/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE LEE, C.J., ISHEE AND FAIR, JJ. LEE, C.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Jasprell Dillard was convicted by a jury in the Bolivar County Circuit Court, Second Judicial District, of aggravated assault with a f irearm and sentenced to serve f if t een y ears in the custody of the Mississippi Departm ent o f C o r r e c t ions, with an additional, consecutive f ive-y ear sentence f

or the f irearm enhancem ent, and f

ive y ears’ probation. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. On April 12, 2014, a l ittle af ter m idnight, Joshua H a m pton was driving slowly down Martin Luther King Drive i n Shaw, Mississippi, when he was s hot. Ham pton was hit in theneck a nd grazed on h is arm . He crashed into a car on the side of the road, and a passerby told

him h e had b een shot and t o not m ove. Ham p ton told the o f

f icer s r esponding to the scene that it was Dillard who had shot him

. Ham pton was then taken by helicopter to a h ospital in Mem phis, Tennessee, where he spent at least f our m onths recovering. ¶3. Trial took place on June 8, 2016. Ham p ton testif

ied that earlier that e v ening, prior to the shooting, he had been with Raneisha Early

. Early had a child with D illard, and Ham pton testif i ed that Dillard did not know Early was involved with Ham pton. Ham

pton stated that he was driving h is cousin’s car that evening, and it had been parked o utside of Early ’s house. Ham pton t estif ied that a f ter leaving Early ’s house, he saw Marchello Gardner a nd Dillard on the street. Ham

p ton testif

i ed that he knew both Gardner and Dillard. Gardner crossed the street, and Dillard rem ained on the lef t side of the s treet, on the driver’s s ide of Ham pton’s car. Ham pton stated that Dillard was standing under a streetlight, and when he turned and looked at Dillard, Dillard started shooting at him

. ¶4. Investigato r M i c h a e l W illiam s with the Bolivar County S herif f’s Departm ent testif

ied that he responded to the s cene at the requ e s t of the S haw Police Departm e nt. He took

num erous photographs that d epicted m ultiple bullet h oles in the car. Investigator W illiam s t e s tif ied that one of the p olice of f icers on the scene had given him Dillard’s nam e as th e suspect. A dditionally , Investigator W illiam s t estif ied that he interviewed H a m pton at the hospital a nd that Ham

pton stated that Dillard had shot him

. During trial, Ham p ton showed the jury s cars on his arm and neck f rom the shooting. Additionally , Ham p ton i d entif

ied Dillard i n court as the person who had shot h im

. The j ury f ound Dillard guilty of aggravated

2assault with a deadly weapon, a f irearm

. Dillard now appeals, and his a ppellate c o unsel has f iled a brief

pursuant to Lindsey v. State , 939 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 2005). DISCUSSION ¶5. On appeal, where the appellant’s counsel does not f ind any arguable issues f

or review, the Mississippi Suprem e Court has instructed that: (1) Counsel m

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

iled in com

pliance with Rule 28, counsel m ust certif y that there are no arguable issues supporting the client’s appeal, a n d he or s he has reached this 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 s t ances 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) Couns e l m

u st then send a copy of the appellate brief t o the def endant, inf orm the client that counsel could f i nd no arguable issues in 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 discove r a n y a r g u able issue in its review of the record, the c ourt m ust, if circum stances warrant, r equire appella t e c o u nsel to subm i t supplem ental

3brief ing o n the issue, regardless of the probability of the def endant’s success on appeal. (5) Once brief

ing is com p lete, the appellate c ourt m ust consider the case on its m erits and render a decision. W indless v. S

tate , 167 So. 3d 277, 278 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2 015) (quoting Lindsey , 939 So. 2d at 748 (¶18)). ¶6. Here, Dillard’s appellate counsel com plied w ith the requirem e n ts set f orth in Lindsey

. Af ter exam ining the r ecord, he f ound no arguable issues f or appeal. Dillard’s counsel sent

a copy of the Lindsey brief

to Dillard, advising him

that he f ound no arguable issues in the record and also inf

orm i ng Dillard that h e had the right t o f ile a pro se s u

pplem e ntal brief

. This Court granted Dillard an additional f orty day s to f

ile a pro se brief

, which Dillard has f ailed to do. Our i ndependent review of the r ecord has n ot revealed a ny arguable issues that would require supplem ental brief ing. A c cordingly , we af f irm Dillard’s conviction and
sentence. ¶7. AFFIRMED

. I R V I N G A N D G RI F F I S , P . J J . , B A R N E S , I S H E E , CARLTON, FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR.

4