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 - KA- 0 1 0 3 4 - S CT J AS ON W

ES LEY ALL RED
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 20/ 2012 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J OSE P H H. LOP ER, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W EBS TE R COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : ERI N E. PRI DG EN 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 : E L L I OT T F L AGGS DI S T RI CT AT T ORNE Y: DOUG E VANS 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 - 01/ 23/ 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 W A L L E R , C . J. , K I T C H E N S A N D C O L E M A N , JJ. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. A fte r a ju ry trial, Ja so n A llred w a s c o n v icte d o f tw o c o u n ts o f s e x u a l b a ttery o f a c h ild underf ourt een ye ar s of

age i n vi ol at i on of

M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 9 7-3- 95( 1) ( d) ( R ev. 2006)
. H e w as s ent ence d t o tw enty- f i ve year s on each c ount , t o be s erved conc urr ent l y, and h e m u st re g iste r as a se x o ffe n d e r up o n re lea se . A llred ’s c o u n se l filed a b rie f p u rsu a n t to th is C o u rt’s h o ld in g in L in d se y v. Sta te , 939 So. 2d 74 3 (M i ss. 2 005)
. A l l r ed w as gi ven

### 2

addi t i onal t i m e t o f

i l e a pr o s e b r i e f

; h o we v e r , h e d i d n o td o s o . F o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b e l o w,
w e a ff irm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e W e b s te r C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u rt .

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. J as on A l l red an d Jennif er A l l red (H al s dor f

) w er e marr i ed and ha d thr ee chi l dr en t ogether- - tw o s ons and a d aught er . T he coupl e s epar at ed i n M ar ch 2009 butw er e not of f i ci al l y di vor ced unt i l N ovember2009. J as on m oved t o hi s f ami l y’ s ho m e in T exas and J enni f erbegan da t i ng C hr i s H al sdor f
. C hr i s eventual l y m oved i n w i th J enni f erand her
c h ild re n . ¶3. A f

t erhe ar i ng ar eportof

the daught ers how i ng apornogr aphi c m ov i e t o a cou s i n, C hr i s a nd J enni f

erconf r ont ed the daught er , and s he t ol d them of i nappr opr i at e s exualcont act
w ith Ja so n . T h is w a s re p o rte d to a u th o rities , an d a g ra n d jury ind icte d Ja so n o n tw o c o u n ts of s exualbatt ery of

a chi l d u nd er f

ou rt een ye ar s of

age, i n vi ol at i on of

M i s s i s s i ppi C ode S ec ti o n 9 7 -3-9 5 (1)(d ). P ri o r t o tr ial an d o u tsi d e the p rese n ce o f th e jury , th e trial co u rt conduct ed a he ar i ng on the St at e’ s m ot i on t o al l ow hear s ay t es t i m ony pur s uantt o the “t ender year s exce pt i on” under R ul e 803( 25) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence
. A f

t erhear i ng th e sta tem e n ts a n d the arg u m e n ts o f b o th p a rties , an d b e in g n o tified th a t th e d a u g h terw o u ld tes tify , the trial c o u rt m a d e o n -th e -re c o rd fin d in g s o f a ll tw e lv e fa c to rs list e d in th e ru le to det erm i ne w hetherther e w er e s uf f i ci enti ndi ci a of

r el i abi l i ty and f

ound the f

act or s t o be
s at i s f i ed. T he tr i al courtal s o consi der ed w hetherthe s t at ement s s houl d be di s al l ow ed under R ul e 403 and f

ound thata ny pr ej udi ce w oul d nots ubs t ant i al l y outw ei gh the pr obat i ve value
o f th e s ta te m e n ts .

### 3

¶4. A ttr i al , the daught ert es t i f i ed that she w as abouts even ye ar s ol d w hen her f ather b e g an m o lest ing he r. S h e testi fi ed th at Jaso n force d he r t o “p u t m y m o u th on h is p riv a te [ s i c] ” and thathe s odom i zed her“ overa nd ove ra nd ove rl i ke eve ry f ew w eeks ors o w hen
m am a w asn’taround
. . . . ” T he d aug hteral so t est i fi ed thatshe had exp eri enced this abu se af t erJ as on m oved outi n 2009 w hen s he w entt o vi s i thi m i n T exas. J enni f ert es t i f i ed that
s he r eac hed a poi ntw her e the daught erdi d notw antt o s t ay atthei rhome i f J enni f erw as not there and , w oul d i ns t ead, s t ay w i th J enni f er ’ s par ent s , w ho l i ved ac r os s the r oad. J enni f er f urthert es t i f

i ed that , w hen herdaught err eturne d f r om herl as ttr i p t o T exas , s he s ai d s he
neverw a nt e d t o go b a c k t o Tex a s t o s e e h e rd a d. Chr i s a ndJ e nn i f e rb oth t e s t i f

i e d a ttr i al to th e d a u g h te r’ s re p o rt s o f a b u s e b y J a s o n . ¶5. J as on’ s aunt , L i nda M i t chel l , t es t i f i ed i n hi s f

avor . She t es t i f

i ed that s he l i ved i n the
s ame com m uni ty w i th J as on and, w hen the f ami l y w as ar ound her , the daught erw as al w ays “huggi ng on hi m , you know , j us tl ovi ng he rda ddy. ” She t es t i f i ed abouta s peci f

i c i ns t ance
w hen J a s on woul d no tl e th i s d a ug ht e rg e ti c e c r e a m an d M i t c he l l s t a t e d J a s on was bei ng
m ean. M i t chel l t es t i f

i ed thataf

t ers he s ai d J as on w as bei ng “a m ean ol d daddy, ” hi s daught er rep li ed , “n o h e is n o t. M y d ad d y is g o o d
. H e is a g o o d d ad d y . H e lov es m e. H e tak es c are of m e. ” DI S CU S S I ON ¶6. I n L indse

y , thi s C ourt out l i ned a pr ocedur e that appel l at e couns el m us t f ol l ow w hen th e y d e te rm in e th a t th e re a re n o ap p e a la b le is s u e s in th e re c o rd
. L indse y , 939 So. 2d at748. T h is C o u rt sta ted a s fo llo w s:

### 4

( 1) C ouns el m us tf

i l e and s erve a br i ef

i n compl i ance w i th M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re 2 8 (a )(1 )-(4 ),(7 ); s e e al s o Sm ith v. Robbins , 528 U
. S. 259, 2 8 0 -81 , 1 2 0 S
. C t. 7 4 6 , 1 4 5 L
. E d . 2 d 7 5 6 (20 0 0 ) (st ati n g that “[c] o u n sel’s s um m ary of

the ca s e’ s pr ocedur al and f actual hi s t ory, w i th ci t at i ons of the r ecor d, both ens ur es thata tr ai ned l egaleye has sear ched the r ecor d f or arg u ab le i ssu es an dassists th e re v iew ing court in it s ow n ev aluati onof the case. ”). (2) A s a p art of th e b ri ef fil ed in co m p li an ce w ith R u le 28 , co u n sel m u st certi fy thatther e ar e no ar guabl e i s s ues s upport i ng the cl i ent ’ s appea l , and he ors he h a s re a c h e d this co n c lu sio n a fte r sc o u rin g th e re c o rd th o ro u g h ly , sp e c ifica lly exami ni ng: ( a) the re as on f orthe arr es tand the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng arrest; (b) a n y p o ssible v iolati o n s o f th e cli en t’ s righ t t o c o u n sel; (c) the en ti re tr i al tr ans cr i pt ; ( d) al l rul i ngs of the tr i al court ; ( e) pos s i bl e pr os ecut or i al m isco n d u ct; (f

) al l jury i n stru cti o n s; (g) all ex h ibit s, w h ethe r adm itted in to e v id e n c e o r n o t; a n d ( h ) p o s s ib le m is ap p lic a tio n o f th e la w in s e n te n c in g . See Robbins , 5 2 8 U .S
. a t 2 8 0 -8 1 ; Tu rn e r v. Sta te , 8 18 S o. 2d 11 86 , 11 89 (M i ss. 2 0 0 1 ). (3 ) C o u n se l m u st th e n se n d a c o p y o f th e ap p e llate b rie f to th e d e fe n d a n t, i nf orm the cl i entthatcouns el coul d f i nd no ar guabl e i s s ues i n the r ecor d, and advi s e the cl i entof

hi s orherr i ghtt o f

i l e a pr o s e b ri e f. Turner , 818 So. 2d at 1 1 8 9 ; c f. P eople v. W

ende , 6 0 0 P
. 2 d 1 0 7 2 , 1 0 7 4 (C al. 1 9 7 9 ). (4 ) S h o u ldth e d e fe n d a n t th e n ra ise a n y a rg u a b le is su e o r sh o u ldth e ap p e llate c o u rt d isc o v e r a n y a rg u ab le is s u e in its re v iew o f th e re c o rd , the c o u rt m u st, i f ci r cumst ance s w arr ant , r equi r e appe l l at e couns el t o s ubm i ts uppl ement al bri efi ng on the is sue, regar dles s of the p robabil i ty o f the d efendan t ’s success o n ap p e a l. Robbins , 528 U
. S. at280 ( ci t i ng W ende , 6 0 0 P
. 2 d at 10 7 4 ). (5 ) O n c e b rie fin g is co m p lete , th e ap p e llate co u rt m u st c o n sid e r th e c a se o n its m er i t s and r endera dec i s i on. L indse y , 939 So. 2d at748. ¶7
. T h is C o u rtfi n d s th at A ll red ’s att o rne y co m p li ed w ith all the re q u ir em en ts of L indse y . C o u n se l file d a b rie f s tatin g s h e “ d ili g e n tly se a rc h e d th e p ro c e d u ra l an d fa c tu a l h isto ry o f th is
cr i m i nal act i on and s cour ed the r ecor d, ” f i ndi ng no ar guabl e i s s ues f orappea l
. C ouns el
s peci f i cal l y as s ert s s he cons i der ed and r evi ew ed: ( a) the r eas on f orthe arr es tand the
c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g th e a rre st; (b ) a n y p o ss ib le v io latio n o f A llred ’s r ig h t to c o u n se l;

### 5

( c) the ent i r e tr i al tr ans cr i pt ; ( d) the rul i ngs of the tr i al court ; ( e) pos s i bl e pr os ecut or i al
m isc o n d u c t; (f) a ll j u ry in stru c tio n s; (g ) a ll ex h ib its, w h e th e r a d m itt e d in to ev id e n c e o r n o t; ( h) pos s i bl e mi s r epr es ent at i on of the l aw i n s ent enci ng; ( i ) the i ndi ctm entand al l pl eadi ngs in th e re c o rd ; (

j) a n y p o s s ib le in e ff

e c tiv e -a s s is ta n c e -o f- c o u n s e l is s u e s ; a n da n y o th e r p o ss ib le
r evi ew abl e i s s ues . C ouns el al s o s t at ed, a nd thi s C ourtconf i rm ed, thats he mai l ed a c opy of h e r b rie f to Ja so n , n o tify in g h im tha t sh e fo u n d n o arg u a b le is su e s a n d th a t h e h a d a rig h t to f i l e a pr o s e br i ef

. J as on di d notf

i l e a pr o s e b ri e f. ¶8. A f

t era compl et e r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e fi nd suff i ci ent evi den ce t o s upport the
c o n v ictio n . T h e S tate w a s re q u ire d to p ro v e th a t Ja so n e n g a g e d in se x u a l p e n e tra tio n w ith a chi l d underthe age of f ourt een and thathe w as tw enty- f ouror m or e m onths ol derthan that
c h ild
. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 95( 1) ( d) ( R ev. 2006)
. Jason w as born on M ar ch 18, 1976, and hi s daught erw as born J une 11, 1999. C ountI of J as on’ s i ndi ctm entw as f or p e n e tr a tio n o f th e a n u s , a n d C o u n t I I w a s fo r p e n e tr a tio n o f th e m o u th
. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97 -3- 95 (a) ( R ev. 20 06 ). T his C ou rtfi nd s the record con t ai ns suff i ci ent pr oo f t o est abli sh the daught er w as unde rthe age of f ourt een atthe t i m e of

the i nci dent s and J as on w as tw entyf ourm onths ol der
. Further , w e f i nd the t es t i m ony f

r om the daught er , C hr i s , and J enni f erw as
s uf f i ci entf orthe j ury t o f

i nd thatJ as on engage d i n sexua l penetr at i on w i thi n the m eani ng of the s t atut e. CONCL US I ON ¶ 9
. A ft e r a re v ie w o f th e re c o rd , th is C o u rt fi n d s th e c o n v ic tio n s h o u ld b e a ff irm e d
. W e f i nd thatA l l r ed’ s couns el compl i ed w i th thi s C ourt ’s h oldi ng i n L indse y i n s ubm i tt i ng her br i ef
. W e al s o f

i nd thatthe St at e pr oved the r equi s i t e el ement s of s exualbatt ery as def

i ned

### 6

i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 95( 1) ( d)
. T her ef or e, w e af

f i rm the j udgm entand s ent ence
o f th e W e b s te r C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u rt . ¶ 1 0
. CO UN T I : CONVI CT I ON OF S EX UAL BAT TE RY AND S E NT E NC E OF TW EN TY - FI VE ( 2 5 ) YE AR S I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR E CT I ON S , AF F I RMED . CO UN T I I : CO NV I CT I ON OF S E XU AL B AT T E RY AN D S E NT E NC E OF T W E NT Y- F I VE ( 2 5 ) YE AR S I N T HE 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, AFF I RM ED . THE SE NTENCES I N BOTH CO UNTS ARE TO BE S ERVED CO NCURR EN TL Y, W I TH T HE AP P EL LA NT TO RE GI S TE R AS A S EX OFFENDER W I TH TH E M I S S I S S I PP I DEPARTM ENT OF PUBLI C SAF ETY W I THI N THR EE DAYS OF RELEAS E FROM CUSTODY. APP ELLANT S HA LL A LSO PA Y A LL C O U R T C O STS A N D A SSESSM EN TS. S E N T E N C E IN T H IS CAU S E S HA LL RUN CO NSE CUTI VELY TO A NY SENTENCE PREVI OU S LY I M P OS ED . DI CKI NS ON AND RA NDOL P H, P . J J . , LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.