IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2015-KA-00734-COA JASON BOZ EMAN A/K/A JASON BOZ MAN APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/24/2015 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CHARLES E. W EBSTER COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: MOLLIE MARIE MCMILLIN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JASON L. DAVIS DISTRICT ATTORNEY: BRENDA FAY MITCHELL NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, FONDLING, AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS, TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO ANY OTHER SENTENCES PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED; COUNT II, FONDLING, AND COUNT III, ATTEMPTED FONDLING, AND SENTENCED ON BOTH COUNTS II AND III TO FIFTEEN YEARS, W I TH TEN YEARS TO SERVE AND FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED FOR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, AND W I TH COUNTS II AND III TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO COUNT I BUT CONCURRENTLY W ITH EACH OTHER, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED: 06/21/2016 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE LEE, C.J., CARLTON AND FAIR, JJ.FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A jury f

ound Jason Bozem an guilty o f t w o c o u n t s o f f o n d l i n g of a child under f ourteen and one c ount of a ttem p t ed f ondling of a child under f

ourteen, and t he c i rcuit court sentenced him , in three separate sentencing j udgm ents, to: (1) im prisonm ent f

or f if teen y ears

on Count I , consecutive to previously im posed sentences; (2) im

prisonm ent f

or f if teen y ears

o n Count II, with f

ive suspended, consecutive t o t he s entence in Count I ; a n d ( 3 ) im p risonm ent f

or f if teen y ears on Count III, with f ive suspended, concurrent to Count II. ¶2. His post-trial m otion f o r a judgm ent notwithstanding the verdict was denied, and he has appealed his convictions to this Court. His appointed appellate counsel f iled a Lindsey 1
brief , and appropriate notice was given to Bozem an of his right to f ile his o wn brief

. He was given f o rty day s to f ile his brief

. He did not do so. ¶3. In Lindsey , the Mississippi Suprem e C ourt s et out t he procedure to be f ollowed when

a d ef endant’s a ttorney d oes not f ind any arguable issues to support an appeal. Lindsey , 939 So. 2d a t 748 (¶18). Appellate counsel m ust f ile a brief showing that counsel has thoroughly reviewed the record and has f ound nothing to s upport an a ppeal. Counsel m

ust then send the appellant a copy of the brief , inf orm i ng the client that counsel f ound no arguable issue f

or

an appeal, and counsel m ust advise t he client of his right to f i le a pro se br i e f

. I d

. If the def endant raises a ny arguable issue in his p r o s e b r i ef , or if t he appellate court f inds any

a r g u a b le issues upon its i ndependent review o f the record, the appellate court m u s t , i f

1 L in d sey v. S ta te , 9 3 9 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 8 (¶1 8 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). 2circum stances warrant, require counsel to f ile supplem ental brief

ing on the issue. ¶4. Bozem an’s a ttorney f iled a brief indicating that she diligently searched the procedural and f actual history of this action and scoured the record, searching f or any arguable issues
t h a t c ould be presented in good f aith, but she f

ound none. Bozem an’s a t torney asserts that she exam i ned: (1) the r eason f or B ozem an’s a r

rest and the circum s t ances surrounding the arrest; (2) any possible v iolations o f Bozem an’s right to counsel; (3) the entire trial transcript; (4) a ll rulings of the trial court; (5) possible procedural m i sconduct; (6) a l l jury instructions; (7) all exhibits, whether a dm itted into evidence o r not; (8) possible m isapplication of the law in sent e n c i n g ; ( 9 ) the indictm e nt and all the p leadings in the record; (10) any possible inef f ective-assistance-of

-counsel issues; and (11) other possible reviewable issues. Lindsey , 939 So. 2d at 748 (¶18) (citations om itted). ¶5. Bozem an’s attorney com plied with Lindsey ’s requirem ents. She e xam ined the record and f ound no a rguable a

ppellate issues. Bozem an’s attorney sent a copy of the L indsey brief
to Bozem a n, stating that, while she f ound no arguable issues, Bozem an had the right to f ile

a p ro se supplem ental brief

. He was given f

orty day s to f

ile the brief

. He did not. W e have independently reviewed the record, including t he t ranscript o f the voir dire exam i nation, and f ind no arguable issues that require s upplem ental brief ing. As a result, we f

ind that
Bozem an’s conviction and sentence should be af f i rm ed. ¶6. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT CO U R T O F T UNICA C OUNTY OF CONVICTION OF C OUNT I, FONDLING, AND SENTENCE OF FIFTEEN Y E A RS, TO RUN CONSECU T I V ELY TO ANY OTHER SENTENCES PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED; COUNT II, F ONDLING, AND COUNT III, ATTEMPTED FONDLING,
3AND S E N T E N C ES ON BOTH COUNTS II AND III OF FIFTEEN YEARS, WITH

FIVE Y EARS SUSPE N D E D FOR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, AND WITH COUNTS II AND III TO R U N CONSECUTIVELY TO COUNT I BUT CONCUR R E N T LY WITH EACH OTHER, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, IS A FFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO TUNICA COUNTY.
L E E , C . J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON , JAMES, WILSON AND GREENLEE, JJ., CONCUR.

4