IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2014-KA-00711-COA OSCAR LEE BAILEY A/K/A OSCAR LEE BAILEY, SR. A/K/A OSCAR BAILEY APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/07/2014 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROGER T. CLARK COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: JOEL SMITH NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: CONVICTED OF TAKING POSSESSION OF OR TAKING AW AY A MOTOR VEHICLE AND SENTENCED TO SIX YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED: 09/08/2015 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., FAIR AND JAMES, JJ. FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Oscar Lee Bailey appeals his conviction of the crim e of taking possession of or taking
away a m otor vehicle. His counsel f iled a Lindsey 1 brief

, subm itting that he could not f ind
any a ppealable issues. Af

ter an independent review of t he r ecord , w e agree with Bailey ’s

1 L in d sey v. S ta te , 9 3 9 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ).counsel. W e theref ore af f irm Bailey ’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS ¶2. In early Decem

ber 2012, Glady s K etchings asked Bailey , her m echanic, to repair her
2001 Ford Taurus. Ketchings believed t he vehicle w as leaking transm i ssion f luid. Bailey drove the car around to see if he could f ind the leak, but had no luck. He told K etchings that he wan t e d to keep t he car overnight and see if he could trace the leak. Ketchings testif ied

at trial that Bailey said he would f ix the car and return i t. Day s passed, and she never heard f rom Bailey

. ¶3. K e t c h i ngs then tried calling Bailey several tim es. He never answered. B e c o mi n g

m ore concerned, Ketchings f iled a police report w ith the Gulf port Police Depar t ment. Around Christm as, Bailey called Ketchings and s a id he had taken h er car out of town. He would not reveal h is e xact location, but he told Ketchings that he was in a sm all town outside of Jackson, Mississippi, where her car had b roken down. Bailey told Ketchings he would f ix the car af ter the holiday s. ¶4. On January 23, 2013, Ketchings contacted the police again and said her car was still

m issing. She stated Jackson was the c a r ’ s l a s t known l ocation. The police conducted an inve s t i g a t i on but were unsuccessf ul in tracking Bailey or the car. At that point, the police charged Bailey with taking possession of or taking away a m otor vehicle and issued a warrant f or h is arrest. B ailey was eventually pulled over driving Ketchings’s car i n Harrison County in O ctober 2 013 f

or an expired tag. T he of f ic e r r a n a warrants check on Bailey ’s driver’s

2license and discovered the outstanding charge against Bailey

.

¶5. Bailey represented him s e lf at trial. He testif ied t hat he had been working on cars f or alm ost thirty y ears. Bailey also testif ied that he o f

ten d rove cars around to locate a p erceived problem

. Ketchings h ad told him she had driven her car around the state, so he was driving her car a round the s tate, too. He f urther stated that he was liable f or a civil action, but not

a c rim i nal one, since he l acked intent. W hen a s ked why it took nearly ten m onths to return the car to Ketchings, he m e rely stated that he could not repair the car bef o re then. ¶6. The jury f

ound B ailey guilty of t aking possession of or t aking away a m otor vehicle. He was sentenced to six y ears’ im prisonm ent. DISCUSSION ¶7. In Lindsey , the Mississippi Suprem e Court set out the p rocedure to b e f ollowed when

a d ef endant’s a ttorney d oes not f ind any arguable i ssues to support an appeal. Lindsey , 939 So. 2d a t 748 (¶18). Appellate counsel m u st f ile a brief showing that counsel h as thoroughly reviewed the record and has f ound nothing to support an appeal. Counsel m ust then send his client a copy of the brief

, inf orm ing the client that he f ound no arguable i ssue f

o r a n appeal, and he m ust advise t he client of his right to f ile a pro se brief

. Id

. If t he def

endant r aises any arguable issue in his pro se b rief , or if the appellate c ourt f inds any arguable issues upon its independent review of the r ecord, the appellate c ourt m u st, if circum stances w arrant, require counsel to f

ile supplem ental brief

ing on the issue. ¶8. Bailey ’s attorney f iled a brief indicating that he d iligently searched the procedural and

3f

actual history of this action and scoured the record, searching f or any arguable issues that could be pr e s e n t e d i n good f aith, but he f

ound none. Bailey ’ s attorney asserts that he

exam ined: (1) the reason f or B ailey ’s arrest a n d t he c ircum stances surrounding the arrest; (2)
any p ossible v iolations of Bailey ’s right to counsel; (3) t he entire trial transcript; (4) all rulings of the trial court; (5) p ossible procedural m isconduct; ( 6) all jury instructions; (7) all exhibits, whether adm itted into evidence o r not; (8) possible m isrepresentation of the law in sentencing; (9) the i ndictm ent and a l l t he pleadings 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). ¶9. Bailey ’s attorney com plied with Lindsey ’s requirem ents. He exam ined the record and f o u n d n o arguable appellate issues. Bailey ’s attorney sent a copy o f the Lindsey b r i e f t o Bailey , stating that, while he f ound no a rguable issues, Bailey had the right to f ile a pro se supplem ental b r ief

. Bailey did not. W e have independently reviewed t he record and f ind

no arguable issues that require supplem ental brief i ng. As a result, we f

ind t hat Bailey ’s conviction and sentence should be af f irm ed. ¶10. T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT O F CONVICTION OF T AKING POSSESSION OF OR TAKING AWAY A M OTOR VEHICLE AND S E N T E N CE OF SIX YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE M I S S I S S I P P I D E PARTMENT OF C O R R E C T I O N S I S A F F I R

M E D . A L L C O S T S O F THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HARRISON COUNTY.
L E E , C .J ., IR VIN G A N D G R IF F IS , P .J J ., B A R N E S , IS H E E , C A R L T O N , M A X W E L L , J A M E S A N D W I L S O N , J J . , C O N C U R .

4