I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - CA- 0 1 3 2 9 - S CT ED W AR D C OX
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 18/ 2012 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J AM ES T. KI TCHE NS, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: CLAY COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T ORNE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : RI CH AR D S HANE M c L AUGHL I N NI CO L E H. M c L AUGHL I N J I M W AI DE RA CH E L P I E RC E W AI DE AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY: BI LL Y L. GORE DI S T RI CT AT T ORNE Y: F OR RE S T AL L GOOD NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 01/ 16/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E R A N D O L P H , P . J. , K I N G A N D C O L E M A N , JJ. RAN DO LPH, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. E dw ard C ox app eal s the C l ay C ou nty C i rcui t C ou rt ’s den i al of his m oti on t o d i sm i ss a thr ee- counti ndi ctm ent , w hi ch char ged C ox w i th thr ee c ount s of aggr avat ed as s aul tunder Sect i on 97- 3- 7 of

the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode. T he i s s ue bef or e thi s C ourti s w hetherthe j us t i ce
court ’ s actof

r evoki ng C ox’ s s us pended s ent ence f ora pr i orm i s demeanor ass aul tand
s ent enci ng hi m t o a s i x- m onth s ent ence bar s the St at e f r om pr os ecuti ng C ox’ s s ubs equent f el ony as s aul t s . W e hol d thatC ox’ s doubl e- j eopar dy cl ai m appl i es onl y t o hi s or i gi nal

### 2

c h a r g e , c o n v i c t i o n , a n d s e n t e n c e , b u tn o th i s s u b s e q u e n tc r i mi n a l a c t i o n s . T h e r e f o r e , we
a ffirm th e trial c o u rt. F ACT UAL BA CKGROUND ¶2. O n thr ee s epar at e occa s i ons , J ul y 23, A ugus t 24, and A ugus t 30, 2010, E dw ar d C ox
as s aul t ed J os hl yn B l ai r , hi s w i f e. O n A ugus t20, 2010, C ox pl eade d gui l ty t o m i s demeanor dom es t i c vi ol ence f

orthe J ul y 23, 2010, as s aul t . T he J us t i ce Courtof C l ay C ounty s ent ence d C ox t o thr ee months s upervi s ed pr obat i on and a thr ee- m onth s us pended s ent ence and or der ed Co x t o c o mp l e t e a n a n g e rma n a g e me n tp r o g r a m. ¶ 3
. F o u r d a y s a f

t e r th e s e n t e n c i n g , o n Au g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 1 0 , Co x a g a i n a s s a u l t e d Bl a i r . On A ugus t30, 2010, C ox as s aul t ed B l ai rf orthe thi r d t i m e, al ong w i th thei rs on, Jamarkuz C ox
a nd Bl a i r ’ s s i s t e r , Che ryl J a c ks on . D ur i ng the l a t t e ra t t a c k, Cox no to nl y c utBl ai r ’ s neck
w ith a k n if

e, he stab b ed h er m u lt iple ti m es in the to rso. C o x also cu t Jam ark u z o n the a rm and s t abbed hi m i n the el bow
. C ox ended hi s m ul t i pl e as s aul t s by cutt i ng C heryl ’ s neck. ¶4. O n Sept em ber 17, 2010, the C l ay C ounty J us t i ce C our t ent er ed a T empora ry O r der f orPr ot ect i on f

r om D om es t i c A bus e and r evoked Cox’s thr ee- m on t h sus pended s ent ence , s ent enci ng hi m t o si x m onths i n j ai l forvi ol at i ng hi s pr obat i on or derf orthe J ul y 23, 2010,
m i s demeanor
. O n F ebruary 4, 2011, the C l ay C ounty J us t i ce Courts epar at el y f ound C ox gu i l ty o f dom est i c viol ence for the A ug ust2 4 assaul t , an d sent enced him t o tw el ve m on ths. C ox appea l ed the convi ct i on t o the ci r cui tcourt , w her e he w as f ound gui l t y and s ent ence d t o one yea ri n j ai l af

t era de novo trial.

### Doubleje opardy ri ghtsare “ col lateral to and totally ind epende nt of hisguilt or 1 

### innoc enc e or

theconduc t of

histrial, and are of imme diateurge ncy. ” Beckwith v. Sta te , 615 So . 2d11 34 , 11 45 (Miss. 1 99 2). 3 ¶5. O n A pr i l 11, 2011, C ox w as i ndi ct ed f orthree cou nts o f aggravat ed as s aul t under Sect i on 97- 3- 7 of

the M i ssi ss i ppi C ode f orthe as s aul t s of

A ugus t30, 2010. C ox f i l ed a
m ot i on t o di s m i s s the i ndi ctm entbase d on the doubl e- j eopar dy cl aus e of

the M i s s i s s i ppi and U .S . C o n stitu tio n s. C o x a rg u e d th a t w h e n th e ju s tice c o u rt re v o k e d h is th re e -m o n th
s us pended s ent ence and s ent ence d hi m t o s i x m onths i n j ai l f orthe mi s demeanorconvi ct i on
r es ul t i ng f

r om the J ul y 23 as s aul t , he w as “puni s hed” f orthe st abbi ng event s on A ugus t30, 2010. T hus , he ar gued thatthe St at e w as pr ecl uded f r om i ndi ct i ng hi m for t he A ugus t30
cr i m es , as i tw oul d cons t i tut e doubl e puni s hm ent . Fol l ow i ng a hear i ng, t he C i r cui tC our tof Cl a y Co u n ty d e n i e d Co x ’ s mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s . Co x a p p e a l e d
. F i n d i n g n o e rr o r , we a f f i rm. A N A L Y S IS ¶6. T he s ol e i s s ue pr es ent ed by C ox i s w hetherC ox’ s curr entpr os ecut i on f or aggr avat ed
a s s a ul ti s ba rr e d b y the pr oh i bi t i on a ga i ns tdo ub l e j e op a r dy i n the St a t e a nd U
. S. C ons t i tut i ons . T hi s C our tappl i es a de novo s t andar d of r evi ew t o c l ai m s of

doubl e j eopar dy. K e lly v . Sta te , 8 0 S o . 3 d 8 0 2 , 8 0 4 (M iss . 2 0 1 2 ). T h e d e n ia l o f a d o u b le- jeo p a rd y c laim is tr e a te d a s a fi n a l ju d g m e n t b y th e lo w e r c o u rt . B e c k w ith v. Sta te , 615 So. 2d 1134, 1146 (M iss
. 1 9 9 2 ) (“ [b ]ec a u se o f th e u n iq u e n a tu re o f th e d e n ial b y a c irc u it co u rt o f a c o lo ra b le d o u b le j eo p ard y claim
. . . itis f inal .
. . w h ich g ives this C o u rtjuri sd ict ion ”). 1

### Th e justice court diderr in exp and ingCo x’s sentence, anissue n ot b efore th is Co urt. 2 

### 4 ¶7. C ox ar gues thatdoub l e j eop ardy ba rs the indi ctm ent, becau se he al ready w as pu nis hed fo r th e A u g u st 3 0 fe lo n y a ss a u lt w h e n th e ju stic e c o u rt se n ten c e d h im to six m o n th s in jail f orvi ol at i ng hi s pr obat i on. O urj ur i s prudence di ct at es otherw i s e. ¶8. T he doubl e-

j eopar dy cl aus e pr ovi des t hr ee s epar at e pr ot ect i ons : “( 1) pr ot ect i on f r om
a s econd pr os ecut i on f orthe s ame of

f ens e af t eracqui t t al , ( 2) pr ot ect i on f r om a s econd p ro se c u tio n fo r th e sa m e o ffe n se a fte r c o n v ictio n , a n d (3 ) p ro tec tio n fro m m u lti p le puni s hm ent s f

orthe s ame of

f ens e. ” K e lly v. Sta te , 80 So. 3d 802, 805 ( M i s s . 2012) ( ci t at i ons
om i t t ed)
. T hi s C our t , i n W a lla c e v. Sta te , hel d that “[ w ] her e a gui l ty pl ea i s acc ept ed and
a s us pended s ent ence i s i m po s ed, the courtcannotl at eri m pos e a pe r i od of i ncar cer at i on
ex ce ed ing th e o ri g inal susp en d ed sen tenc e w h ere th e d efe n d an t fail s t o m aintain a stan d ard of good behavi or . T o do s o w oul d expos e the def endantt o doubl e j eopardy. ” W al lace v. S ta te , 60 7 So
. 2d 11 84 , 11 87 ( M i s s . 19 92 ) ( c i t i ng L e o n a r dv . Sta te , 271 So. 2d 445, 447 ( M i s s . 1973) )
. H ow ever, d oubl e j eopar dy att ache s onl y as t o thatpart i cul arof f ens e and
s e n te n c e , n o t s u b s e q u e n t c ri m e s . See W al lace , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 8 7 ; s ee J o h n so n v. Sta te , 753 S o . 2 d 4 4 9 , 4 5 4 (M iss . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); E th rid g e v. Sta te , 8 0 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 4 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); B ra n c h v. Sta te , 9 9 6 S o . 2 d 8 2 9 , 8 3 2 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); W ill ia m s v . Sta te , 4 S o . 3 d 3 8 8 , 3 9 4 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 9 ). ¶9. I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , the cir cuitco urtd i d no terrb y den ying C ox ’s m oti on t o dis m i ss the i ndi ctm ent . A doubl e- j eopar dy c l ai m a t t ache d onl y t o the f i r s tconvi ct i on/ s ent ence f or 2

### 5

the J u ly 2 3 m isde m ea n o r, n o t f o r th e su b seq u en t cri m es o f A u g u st 24 an d 3 0
. T h u s, C o x ’s
c laim is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 0
. W e a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f C o x ’s m o tio n to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t. ¶ 1 1
. AFF I RM ED
. W AL LE R, C. J . , DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , LA M AR, KI TC HENS , P I ER CE , KI NG AN D C OL E M AN , J J . , CO NC UR . CH AN DL E R, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .