I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - KA- 0 2 2 7 9 - S CT L EE DA R R EL N

N IX
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 10/ 2007 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S T E P HE N B
. S I M P S ON CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: HARRI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT BENJ AM I N A. S UBER AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: BY : J EFFR EY A
. K LI N G FU SS C O N O A
. C A R A N N A , II NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 02/ 19/ 2009 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 W A L L E R , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D L A M A R , JJ. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. L ee D arr el n N i x w as con vict ed i n the H arr i son C ou nty C i rcui t C ou rt on tw o co un t s: C ountI – t ou c hi ng a c hi l d f orl us t f ul pu rpo s e s , a nd CountI I – k i dn a pp i ng . N i x w as
s ent ence d t o t e n y e a r s f ore a c h o f

the tw o c ou nt s , w i th the s e nt e nc e s t o run c on s e c ut i vel y. N i x now appea l s hi s convi ct i on, as s ert i ng thattr i al couns el w as i nef f ect i ve and thatthe
ver di ctw as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
. ¶2. Fi ndi ng no m er i tt o N i x’ s cl ai m s , thi s C our taf f i r m s the convi ct i on.

### Th is Co urt u ses the fictio nal n ame “Jane” inord er to p rotect th e victim. 1 

### Jane i dentif

ie d theman as thedefe ndant , LeeDarr eln Nix, in a photo l ineup on the 2 

### eve ning of

theinc ide nt and during her te stim ony. 2 FACTS ¶ 3
. O n S e p te m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 5 , Ja n e le ft th e B e a u v o irM a n o r a p a rt m e n ts a t a ro u n d 9 :0 0 p .m ., w al ki ng hom e t o the C ovenantSquar e apa r t m ent s . J ane, f our t een ye ar s ol d atthe t i m e, 1 f r equent l y m ade thi s j ourney, us i ng the s ame r out e thats he w al ked thateveni ng. ¶4. A s J ane w al ked thr ough the parki ng l ot of E l R ancho, def endant N i x appr oache d her in a g ree n v eh icl e. N ix as k ed Jan e if sh e w a s th e g ir l w h o stay ed at C o v en an t Sq u are 2 apart m ent s , s t at i ng t hathe had s een he rbef or e. B ecause s he bel i eved thathe may have know n herm other , J ane s poke t o N i x. A f t era br i ef

c onver s at i on, J ane cont i nued on herw ay t o C ov enan tS qu are apartm ents . ¶5. W hen s he turned the corner af t er w al king behi nd Popeye’ s , J ane s aw N i x runni ng
acr os s the s tr eett ow ar d her
. N i x s t opped t o t al k t o J ane and as ked w her e s he w as goi ng. Ja n e k e p t w a lk in g to w a rd th e a p a rtm e n ts, a n d N ix w a lk e d w ith h e r. A s th e y w a lk e d , N ix of f er ed t o pay J ane i f

s he w oul d l ethi m puthi s ha nd up hers ki r t . J ane t ol d N i x no. N i x t hen g ra b b e d Ja n e b y th e sh irt co llar, m a k in g a rip p in g so u n d , an d p u t h is h a n d u p h e r sk irt, t ouchi ng herpr i vat e ar ea. ¶6. N i x cont i nued t o hol d Jane and begged t o s t i ck hi s hand up J ane’ s s ki r tagai n, but J ane
re fu se d . N ix to o k Ja n e to w a rd a d itch a n d h e ld h e r b y th e w rist w h ile h e u rin a ted . A s N ix cont i nu ed t o pul l J ane t ow ar d the di t ch, J ane ki cked N i x i n the l eg and r an t o C ovenant S qu are apartm ents .

### 3

¶ 7
. U p o n re a c h in g th e a p a rt m e n ts, Ja n e jo in e d h e r frie n d s, w h o w e re o u tsid e , a n d to ld them w hathad t r ans pi r ed. J ane then sa w N i x come outf r om the others i de of

a bui l di ng, and poi nt ed hi m outt o herf r i ends
. C ory R obi ns on, a f r i end of J ane’ s , chas ed N i x on f oot , and N i x f l ed t ow ar d W al gr eens and B ack Y ar d B ur ger s . N i x goti n hi s c ara nd dr ove aw ay f r om the s cene . A s N i x dr ove aw ay, how ever , he pas s ed R obi ns on, and R obi ns on ki cked the r ear p asse n g er side o f th e c ar. ¶ 8
. O ffic e r K it M a n n in g w a s d ispa tch e d to C o v e n a n t S q u a re a p a rtm e n ts a t a p p ro x im a tely 8 :50 p . m . O ffi ce r M an n ing to o k J a n e’s statem en t and issue d a “ b e o n the lo o k o u t” for a vehi cl e as des cr i bed by Jane. A f ew hour s l at er , a vehi cl e mat chi ng the des cr i pt i on w as
re p o rte d a t 1 6 2 6 P e rry D riv e , w h e re th e o ffic e rs lo c a ted a n d q u e sti o n e d N ix a n d h is gi r l f r i end, D i anne M ayf

i el d. O f f i cerM anni ng t es t i f

i ed thata f

ootpr i nt w as vis i bl e on the
v e h icle ’s r ig h t re a r q u a rte r p a n e l, co n sis ten t w ith R o b in so n ’s s tate m e n t. ¶ 9
. W h i l e b e i n g q u e s t i o n e d th a t n i g h t b y M a n n i n g , Ni x s t a t e d th a t h e h a d r e tu rn e d h o me thateveni ng s om et i m e betw een 6 a nd 6: 30 p. m . A ttr i al , N i x t es t i f i ed thaton thateveni ng, h e m e t A n g e la F letc h e r a t 6 :3 0 p .m . at H a rd y C o u rt S h o p p in g C e n te r in G u lfp o rt. N ix t es t i f i ed t hathe ar r i ved hom e atappr oxi m at el y 8: 30 p. m . t hateveni ng. Fl et chert es t i f i ed that
s h e me twi th Ni x , a n d h e l e f tb e twe e n 7 : 3 0 a n d 8 : 3 0 p . m. ¶10. J ane t es t i f

i ed that on the dat e of the i nci dent , N i x, the m an w ho gr abbed and t ouched her , w as w ear i ng a j er s ey. R obi ns on t es t i f i ed thatthe man he chas ed, w hom he i dent i f i ed at tr i al as N i x, w as w ear i ng a K obe B ryantL os A ngel es L aker s j er s ey. M ayf i el d t ol d O f

f i cer M anni ng thatw hen N i x arr i ved home atar ound 8: 30 p. m . , he w as w ear i ng hi s K obe B r yant L os A ngel es L aker s j er s ey.

### Th i s C ourt a dopt ed the Strickl

and te st in Gillia rd v. State , 46 2 S o. 2 d 7 10 (Miss. 3 

### 1985). 4 A N A L Y S IS I . W het her def

ens e couns el ’ s as s i s t ance w as i nef f ect i ve i n fai l i ng t o obj ect t o j ury i ns t r uc t i on. ¶11. N i x ar gues that his con vi ct i on shoul d be re ver s ed and r emanded fora new t r i al due t o i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el
. Speci f i cal l y, N i x ass ert s t hatt r i al counse l shoul d have
o b jected to jury instruction S -1 o ffered b y the p rose cu ti o n . A cc o rdin g to N ix, th e jury i n s tru c t i o n c o n t a i n e d l a n g u a g e th a td i f f e r e d f r o m th e l a n g u a g e o f

th e i n d i c t me n t . Ni x c l a i ms thathe w as pr ej udi ced by c ouns el ’ s f ai l ur e t o obj ecta nd w as c onvi ct ed undera l es s erbur den
o f p ro o f th a n re q u ire d b y th e in d ictm e n t. ¶ 1 2
. T h e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld tha t “th e b e n c h m a rk fo r ju d g in g a n y c laim of i nef f ect i venes s [ of

couns el ] m us tbe w hethercounse l ’ s conductso underm i ned t he pr oper f unct i oni ng of

the adve r s ar i al pr oces s thatthe tr i al cannotbe r el i ed on as ha vi ng pr oduced a j us tr es ul t . ” Str i ckland v. W as hington , 466 U
. S. 668, 686, 104 S. C t . 2052, 80 L
. E d. 2d 674 ( 1984). T o det erm i ne w hethercouns el ’ s conductunderm i ned the f ai rnes s of

t he 3 pr ocee di ngs , the def

endantm us ts how that : ( 1) couns el ’ s pe r f or m ance w as def

i ci ent ; and ( 2) th e d e fi c ie n t p e rf

o rm a n c e d e p ri v e d h im o f a fa irtr ia l. S trin g e r v . S ta te , 454 So. 2d 468, 476 ( M i s s . 1984)
. I f

the def endanti s notabl e t o m ake both show i ngs , “i tcannotbe s ai d thatt he
c o n v ictio n . . . res u lted fro m a b re a k d o w n in th e ad v e rsa ry p ro c e ss tha t re n d e rs th e re su lt
unr el i abl e. ” Str i c kl

and , 466 U
. S. at687.

### 5

¶13. D ef

i ci ency of

the conduc tand any r es ul t i ng pr ej udi ci al ef f ectar e as s es s ed by l ooki ng
a t th e to ta lity o f t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . H iterv. S ta te , 660 So. 2d 961, 965 ( M i s s . 1995) ( ci t i ng Ca rn e y v. S ta te , 525 So. 2d 776, 780 ( M i s s . 1988))
. T he r i ghtt o ef f ect i ve couns el ent i t l es
a d e fe n d a n t t o c o m p e te n t c o u n s e l, n o t p e rf e c t c o u n s e l. D a v is v . S ta te , 897 So. 2d 960, 966 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ). A stro n g b u t re b u ttab le p re su m p tio n e x ists th a t co u n se l’s c o n d u c t fe ll w ith in th e w id e r a n g e o f re a s o n a b le p ro fe s s io n a l a s s is ta n c e . H iter , 66 0 S o . 2 d at 96 5
. T h e fa il u re
o f co u n sel t o m ak e ce rt ain o b jecti o n s m ay fall w ith in the am b ito f tri al strateg y , an d there fore
m a y n o t g iv e ris e to a c la im fo r i n e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. B e ll v. S ta te , 879 So. 2d 4 2 3 , 4 4 0 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 ), Co le v . S ta te , 6 6 6 S o . 2 d 7 6 7 , 7 7 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). ¶14. C ountI of

t he gr and j ury i ndi ctm ent( T ouchi ng of a C hi l d f orL us t f ul Purpos es ) s t at ed that N i x “ .
. . did unlaw ful l y, w i l ful l y an d fel on i ou sl y han dle, touch or rub w i th h i s hand s, the vagi na of

[ J ane]
. . . . ” ( E m phas i s added)
. T he j ury i ns truct i on of f er ed by the St at e, how ever , di f

f er ed by s t at i ng thatN i x “ .
. . di d unl aw f ul l y, w i l f ul l y and f

el oni ous l y handl e, to u c h o r r u b w ith h is h a n d s , the body o f [ Jan e] .
. . . ” (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 1 5
. N ix a rg u e s th a t trial c o u n se l sh o u ld h a v e o b jec ted to th e ju ry in stru c tio n b e c a u se it di f f er ed f r om the l anguage of

the i ndi ctm ent . T he j ury i ns truct i on, how ever , f ol l ow ed the lang u ag e o f th e M issi ssipp i st atute u n d er w h ich N ix w as ch arg ed , w h ich req u ir es th at th ere be a ha ndl i ng, t ouchi ng, orrubbi ng of a chi l d f orthe purpos e of

gr at i f yi ng l us tori ndul gi ng depr aved l i cent i ous s exual de s i r es , r egar dl es s of w hi ch partof

the chi l d’ s body i s handl ed, to u c h e d , o r r u b b e d
. See M iss. C o d e. A n n . § 9 7 -5-2 3 (1) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶16. T he f

i r s tpr ong of

the Str i ckland tes t re q u ir e s c o u n s e l’ s c o n d u c t to b e d e fic ien t. Str i c kl and , 466 U
. S. at687. I f the j ury i ns truct i on of

f er ed by t he St at e w as noter r or , t hen

### 6

couns el ’ s f

ai l ur e t o obj ectc oul d notr i s e t o the l evel of de f i ci entc onduct
. T he purpos e of t he in d ic tm e n t is to g iv e th e d e fe n d a n t f a ir n o ti c e o f t h e c ri m e c h a rg e d
. B e ll v. S ta te , 360 So. 2d 1206 , 12 08
- 12 09 ( M i s s . 19 78 )
. Thi s Cour tha s he l d tha t , a l tho ug h j ury i ns truc t i ons g e n e ra lly s h o u ld tra c k th e la n g u a g e o f in d ictm e n ts, a n in stru c tio n is n o t n e c e ss a rily fa tally d e fe c tiv e f

o r fa ilu re to d o so , so lo n g a s th e in stru c tio n “ a c c u ra tely fo llo w [s] the re q u isite
e l e ment s o f

the cr i m e. ” D u

p la n tis v. S ta te , 7 0 8 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 7 , 1 3 4 3 -1 3 4 4 (M is s . 1 9 9 8 ). A ju ry i n stru cti o n ’s va ri an ce fr o m th e lan g u ag e o f th e ind ictm en t “m u st b e m ateria l to
acc ur at el y c at egor i ze an i ns truct i on as err or . ” W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 44 5 S o. 2d 79 8, 80 6 (M i ss. 1 9 8 4 ). ¶17. I n Wil

lia ms , the i ndi ctm entchar ged the def endantw i th t aki ng a m oney box, a bi l l f ol d, and s om e money. I

d . T he i ns truct i on, how ever , di r ect ed the j ury t o det erm i ne w hetherthe d e fe n d a n t to o k th e m o n e y b o x , b illf o ld , o r a n y th in g o f v a lu e . I d. T hi s C our tf

ound thatthe ju ry i n s tr u c ti o n , a lth o u g h a v a ri a n c e fr o m th e in d ic tm e n t, d id n o t c o n s titu te e rr o r. I d . In
s uppor tof

i t s f i ndi ng, thi s C our tnot ed thatthe i ns truct i on di d not : mat er i al l y va ry f r om the char ge al l eged i n the i ndi ctm ent , acc us e the def endantof a cr i m e se par at e and di s t i nctf r om th a t o f t h e in d ic tm e n t, o r r e fe r t o a lle g e d fa c ts o f w h ic h th e d e fe n d a n t h a d n o n o tic e . I d. ¶18. A ppl yi ng thes e f act or s t o the i ns t ant cas e, t he dif fer i ng l anguage of the i ns truct i on
s houl d notbe cha r act er i zed a s m at er i al , s i nce i tf ol l ow s the l anguage of

the s t atut e under
w hi ch N i x w as char ged. T he i ns truct i on di d notacc us e N i x of any others epar at e ordi s t i nct
cr i m e ot hert han t hatof the i ndi ctm ent , nordi d i tr ef ert o f act s of w hi ch N i x had no not i ce. A lth o u g h th e lan g u a g e o f th e in stru c tio n v a rie d fro m th a t o f th e in d ictm e n t, i t w a s n o t a
m at er i al var i ance and ther ef or e di d notc ons t i tut e err or . A s a l l ow i ng the i ns truct i on w as not

### 7

err or , i tcannotbe s ai d thattr i al couns el ’ s conductw as def i ci entba s ed on a f

ai l ur e t o obj ect
on that basi s. ¶19. E ven i f

couns el ’ s conductcan be vi ew ed as def i ci ent , N i x has nots at i s f i ed the s econd p ro n g , tha t th e c o n d u c t d e p riv e d h im o f a fa ir trial. ¶2 0. N i x ar gues t hatt he l anguage of t he j ur y i ns truc t i on ef f ect i vel y amended t he i ndi ctm ent , and thathe w as pr ej udi ced by suc h am endment
. I n s uppor tof thi s cont ent i on, N i x cit es Q u ick v. S ta te , 569 So. 2d 1197 ( M i s s . 1990)
. I n thatcas e, thi s C our tr ever s ed and
r emanded t he c on vi c t i on , ho l di ng tha tthe j ury i ns truc t i on s c ont ai ned addi t i onal l anguage t hat
a m o u n te d to a n a m e n d m e n t o f t h e s u b s ta n c e o f t h e in d ic tm e n t. I

d. at1200. I n Q ui ck , t he d e fe n d a n t w a s c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t w ith “ w ilfu lly , u n law fu lly , felo n io u sly , p u rp o se ly
a n d k n o w in g ly ” c o m m ittin g a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt. I d. at1198. T he jury i ns truct i on added l anguage thatpr ovi ded f ora gui l ty ver di cti f

the j ury f

ound thatthe as s aul tw as comm i t t ed “r eckl es s l y underci r cumst ance s m ani f est i ng extr eme i ndi f

f er ence t o the val ue t o hum an l i f e. ” I d. ¶ 2 1
. Q ui ck , how ever , i s eas i l y di s t i ngui s hed f r om the i ns t antcas e. I n Q ui ck , th is C o u rt hel d that“though the def endantm ay have def

ended a gai ns tthe elem ent s of purpos el y and kn ow i ng l y, he w as caug ht of f gu ard b y no thav i ng been pu ton no t i ce t hat he m ustal so def end aga i ns tthe el ementof r eckl es s nes s . ” I

d. at1200. N i x’ s def

ens e pr es ent ed attr i al w as thathe w as notpr es entw hen the i nci dentoc curr ed and ther ef or e coul d nothave c om m i t t ed the cr i m e. H i s def

ens e, i f f ound cr edi bl e, w oul d have be en a c om pl et e def ens e, w hetherhe
w a s c ha r ge d wi th t ou c hi ng the bo dy ort ou c hi ng the va gi na . H i s de f e ns e w a s no ta f

f ect ed

### 8

by the cha nge i n l anguage i n the j ury i ns truct i on, and ther ef or e, N i x i s unabl e t o show p re ju d ice th a t d e p riv e d h im o f a fa ir trial. ¶22. T o pas s the Str i ckland t es t , N i x m us tdem on st rat e that , b ut f or t he err or s of tr i al
c o u n s e l , th e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i ty th a th e wo u l d h a v e r e c e i v e d a d i f f e r e n to u t c o me in th e tr ia l. N

ico la u v. S ta te , 612 So. 2d 1080, 1086 ( M i s s . 1992). N i x has nots at i s f i ed ei therpr ong of

the Str i c kl

and tes t, an d th e re fo re , this a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. I I . W het her t he verdi ct w as agai nst t he overwh el m i ng w ei ght of t he evi dence. ¶23. N i x ar gues that t he ci rcui t cou rt err ed i n denyi ng hi s m ot i on f or a new tr i al , as t he g u ilty v e rd ict re tu rn e d b y th e jur y is a g a in st th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e . N ix
as s ert s t hat t he evi dence pr es ent ed coul d nots uppor ta f i ndi ng thatthe pr os ecut i on had p ro v e d th e e lem e n ts o f th e o ffe n se c h a rg e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. ¶24. T he s t andar d of

r evi ew appl i ed t o cl ai m s thata convi ct i on i s a ga i ns tthe ov erw hel m i ng
w ei gh tof the ev i den ce i s as f oll ow s: [ T hi s Court ] musta cce pta s true the evi dence w hi ch s uppor t s the ver di ctand w ill re v e rse o n ly w h e n c o n v in c e d th a t th e c irc u it co u rt h a s a b u se d its dis cret i on i n fai l i ng t o g ranta new tri al
. A new tri al w i l l no tbe o rder ed u nles s th e v e rd ict is so co n tra ry to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e th a t to al l ow i tt o s t and w oul d s anct i on uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. T o dd v. S ta te , 806 So. 2d 1086, 1090 ( M i s s . 2001)
. “Ther e i s a pr es um pt i on thatt he j u d g me n to f

th e tr i a l c o u r ti s c o r r e c t , a n d th e b u r d e n i s o n th e a p p e l l a n tt o d e mo n s tr a t e s o me
r evers i bl e err ort o thi s C our t . ” K in gv. S ta te , 857 So. 2d 702, 731 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng B ra n c h v. S ta te , 3 4 7 S o . 2 d 9 5 7 , 9 5 8 (M iss. 1 9 7 7 )). ¶25. A r evi ew of

the r ecor d r evea l s thatevidence sup po rt i ng t he jur y’s ver dict w as pr es ent ed thr oughoutthe t r i al
. J ane t es t i f i ed as t o w hatt r ans pi r ed t hatni ghtand i dent i f i ed

### Seeals o Dixon v. Sta te , 51 9 S o. 2 d 1 22 6, 1 22 8 ( Miss. 1 98 8); Gro seclose v. State , 4 

### 440 So. 2d 297, 300 (Mi ss . 1983) ; and Ma rr v. Sta te , 159 So. 2d 167 (Mi ss . 1963)
. 9 both N i x a nd hi s ve hi cl e. R obi ns on a l s o i dent i f i ed N i x a nd t es t i f

i ed t o w hathe s aw thatni ght and w her e he ki cked the vehi cl e. O f f i cerM anni ng t es t i f

i ed t hatN i x’ s vehi cl e had a f ootpr i nt
o n th e re a r p a ss e n g e r d o o r, c o rro b o ra tin g R o b in so n ’s te stim o n y . P h o to g ra p h s o f th e v e h icle and f ootpr i ntw er e ent er ed i nt o evi dence
. J ane t es t i f i ed thatheras s ai l antw as w ear i ng a j er s ey, and R obi ns on t es t i f i ed thatN i x w as w ear i ng a K obe B ryantj er s ey. M ayf i el d t es t i f i ed thatN i x w as w ear i ng a K obe B r yantj er s ey w hen he r eturned home t hateveni ng. ¶ 2 6
. D u rin g h is tes tim o n y , N ix d e n ied b e in g a t th e lo c a tio n o f th e in c id e n t o n th e n ig h t in q u e stio n . F le tc h e r c o rro b o ra ted h is a lib i an d tes tified a b o u t th e ir m e e tin g th a t n ig h t. T h is t es t i m ony, how ever , m er el y cr eat ed an i s s ue of f actf orthe j ury t o r es ol ve. “The j ury i s the
s ol e j udge of

the w ei ghtof

the evi dence and the cr edi bi l i ty of the w i tnes s es . ” Mo h r v. S ta te , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 4 2 6 , 4 3 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). 4 ¶27. T he ci r cui tcour tdi d noterri n denyi ng N i x’ s m ot i on f ora new tr i al , as the ver di ct w as
n o t so c o n tr a ry to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e a s to sa n c tio n u n c o n sc io n a b le i nj us t i ce. CO NC L US I ON ¶2 8
. F ind ing N ix’s arg u m e n ts to b e w ith o u t m eritfor the fore g o ing rea so n s, this C o u rt af f i r m s the convi ct i on. ¶29. COUNT I : CONV I CT I ON OF T OU CH I NG OF A CH I LD FOR LUS TF UL P U R P OS E S A N D S E N T E N C E O F T E N ( 1 0 ) Y E A R S I N T HE C U S T OD Y O F T HE M ISS ISS IP P I D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S , A F F IR M E D . C O U N T II: CO NV I CT I ON OF KI DN AP P I NG AN D S E NT E NC E OF TE N ( 1 0 ) YE AR S I N T HE

### 10

C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, AF F I RM ED . S EN TE NCE S I N COUNT S I AND I I S HALL RUN CONS EC UT I VE LY . W AL L E R, C . J . , C A R L S ON A N D GR A V E S , P . J J . , D I C KI N S ON , R A N D OL P H, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR.