IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2017-KM-00194-COA ALFRED BROOKS A/K/A ALFRED VERNON BROOKS A/K/A ALFRED V. BROOKS APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/03/2017 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DALE HARKEY COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: GEORGE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ALFRED BROOKS (PRO SE) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LISA L. BLOUNT BARBARA W AKELAND BYRD DISTRICT ATTORNEY: JOSEPH W . GRIFFIN NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 03/26/2019 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:
EN BANC. BARNES, C.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Alf

red Brooks was c onvicted of m isdem eanor stalking in the George C ounty Justice
Court (cause num

ber 2015-10,157(3)) and the Lucedale M unicipal Cou r t ( c a u se num ber 2016-10,005 (3)). He f

iled an appeal w ith the George County C ircuit Court. Af t er a de novo
t r i al, the circuit court af

f irm ed the justice c o urt’s ruling. The m unicipal court case wa s dism issed. On January 18, 2017, B rooks w as sentenced to six m onths’ im prisonm ent in the George County C orrectional Facility , with all b ut 45 day s of t he s entence suspended pending

t w o y e a r s of good behavior, with credit f or all t im e served, and a f ine of $500 a nd courtcosts. On Ja n u a r y 3 1 , 2 0 1 7 , the court am ended t he sentence sua sponte t o take out the

requirem ent that Brooks serve 45 day s in custo d y . B r o o k s f iled a m otion f

o r a new trial, which was d enied. Brooks was represented during th e s e p r o c eedings by attorney David Futch. ¶2. Brooks f

iled a pro se notice of a p p e a l

. In a June 23, 2 017 order, the Mississippi Suprem e Court rem anded the case to the circuit court f or consideration of

whether Brooks had w aived his right to appellate counsel under Mississ i p p i R u l e of Appellate Procedure 6(c)(1) and suspended t he appeal pe n d i n g f urther order of the suprem e court. Af ter a hearing, the circuit court appointed Ben Holland as Brooks’s appellate counsel on July 24,
2017. ¶3. A m onth later , H o l l a n d f i l e d a m o t i o n t o withdraw as counsel with this Court, claim ing Brooks no l onger wanted his re p resentation on appeal. The m o tion was denied because it did not com

ply with the requirem ents of Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c). O n August 31, 2017, Brooks f iled a “Rem oval of Attorney of Record,” requesting that the Court o f Appeals rem ove Holland as h is counsel. W e rem anded the m otion to the circuit

c o u r t f o r a hearing, which was held on Septem ber 7, 2017. The court allowed Bro o k s additional tim e to decide whether he wanted Holland to represent him

. ¶4. On Decem

ber 29, 2017, Holland f i l e d a s e c o n d mo t i o n t o withdraw as counsel because Brooks had nam e d Holland as a def endant i n a civil action f

iled in the United States District C ourt f

or the Southern District of M ississippi. On J a n uary 11, 2018, we held Holland’s m otion in abey ance pending the circuit court’s ruling on whether Brooks “should

2be appointed s ubstitute counsel, or whether h e has knowin g l y and intelligently w aived the

right to counsel.” ¶5. At a January 30, 2018 hearing, Brooks i ndicated to the circuit c ourt that he desired to be represented by counsel on appeal. During t he course o f the hearing, however, the circuit judge d eterm ined that Brooks would only accept c ounsel who would “argue m atters personal

to Mr. B rooks” and that are “wholly outside the r ecord o f the proceedings.” The judge also noted t hat Brooks had sued t hree of the f our attorney s who had represented him in the prior proceedings and had f

iled a bar com

plaint against one of the f our. Given B rooks’s actions, the circuit court concluded that it wou l d be u nf air to appoint another attorney t o represent Brooks since such representation m ight expose the attorney to “ the risk o f vexa t i ous litigation, bar com

plaints, a nd p erhaps f

inancial ruin.” Theref

ore, because it appeared that

no attorney would b e capable of satisf y ing Brooks’s “needs and objectives,” the c ourt held that Brooks had ef

f ectively w aived his right to appointed couns e l on appeal, and Holland should be allowed to withdraw as counsel. The circuit court entered its order and f indings on February

7, 2018. ¶6. On February 21, 2018, a panel of this C ourt granted Holland’s m otion to w ithdraw as counsel and allowed Brooks to proceed pro se on his appeal.
DISCUSSION ¶7. The State argues t hat Brooks “has f ailed to present any discernable legal issues” f o r h i s a p p e a l and h a s f

a iled to cite to t he record or relevant legal authorities. 1 Adm ittedly ,

1 O n Ju n e 2 7 , 2 0 1 8 , th e S tate f iled a m o t i o n t o d ism i ss f o r f ailu re to co m

p ly w ith M ississip p i R u l e o f A p p e l l a t e P r o ced u re 2 8 ( a)(1 ) a n d to su sp en d t h e b rief i n g sch ed u le. 3am ong his allegations of c orruption and c onspiracy in t he legal sy stem a s a w h o l e , it is

dif f icult to ascertain any legal argum ents in B r o o k s ’ s b r i ef s. I t appears B rooks’s chief

com plaint is t hat he was subjecte d t o d o uble j eopardy because he was c harged with

m isdem eanor s talking i n b o t h t he justice and m unicipal court. Double jeopardy protects a def endant against a second prosecution f or the sam e of

f ense af ter a n acquittal or conviction.
Bro w n v
. S t a t e , 731 So. 2d 595, 599 (¶9) (Miss. 1999). Although Brooks was charged f or stalking in b oth the justice court and the m u nici p a l c o u r t , he w as only prosecuted f or the justice court charge; t he m unicipal court charge of stalking was dism issed. T h us, h e was not prosecuted f

or the sam e of

f e nse af ter his conviction; so we f ind no m erit to this claim

. ¶8. Furtherm ore, this C ourt has already ruled o n t h i s i s s u e i n a separate order dated February 27, 2018, in which we addressed a p etition f or writ of m andam

us f iled by Brooks.
In h is petition, Brooks requested that we “review the o rder g iven by the l ower court in its dism issal of cause num

b er 201 6

- 1 0 , 0 0 5(3)” a nd c l aim ed that the o rder was erroneous because “a double-jeopardy case under Mississippi law

. . . m ust be guilty or not guilty . It cannot be a dism issal.” W e concluded: [ I]t appears t hat Brooks wants this Court to com pel the circuit court t o provide him with relief f

r om the di s mi s s al order in cause num ber 2016-10,005(3). However, Brooks has no right to appeal f rom a dism i ssal order. “Any person convicted of

an of f ense in a circuit court m ay appeal to the Suprem e Court.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-101 (Rev. 2015). Because Brooks was not c onvicted in cause num

ber 2016-10,005(3), he m ay not appeal f rom the dism i ssal order in that case. Since Brooks m ay not appeal the dism issal order, this Court h as no jurisdiction over cause num ber 2 016-10 , 0 0 5 ( 3 ) even though it h as

B r o o k s resp o n d ed w ith a m o t io n f o r a d ef au lt j u d g m en t. T h i s C o u rt d en ied th e S tate’s m o tio n to d ism iss w ith o u t p rej u d ice an d g ran ted t h e m o tio n to su sp en d th e b rief i n g sch ed u le. B ro o k s’s m o tio n w as d en ied

. 4jurisdiction over t h e a p p e a l f r om cause num

ber 2015-10,157(3). But this Court has no authority to order the c i r c u i t court t o take any action in cause num ber 2016-10,005(3). See M.R.A.P. 21 (b) (“a writ, order, or other process in any appeal not transf

erred to the Court of Appeals

. . . sha l l b e o f no ef f ect.”). ¶9. Brooks also contends that he was deprived of c o u n s e l on appeal. Once a gain, this
Court has ruled on t his issue when we granted Holland’s m otion to withdraw as appellate counsel on February 21, 2018. As d i s c u s s e d , Brooks was af f orded am ple opportunity to work with the attorney s assigned to him by the circuit court. He ref

used to do so and f

iled lawsuits against three of

them to express his dissatisf action with their representation. ¶10. Accordingly , as this Court has already ruled on the issues raised by Brooks through

two separate m otions, we f i nd there are no issues r em a i ning on appeal f o r this Court to address. W e af

f irm the circuit court’s judgm ent. ¶11. AFFIRMED.
C A R L T O N AND J. W ILSON, P.JJ., G R E E N L E E , W E S T B R O O K S , T I N D E L L , McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR.

5