IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2016-KA-00321-COA BELYNTHIA ROSS APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/01/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W ILLIAM E. CHAPMAN III COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHRISTOPHER A. TABB ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LISA L. BLOUNT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: MICHAEL GUEST NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 08/22/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE IRVING, P.J., ISHEE AND GREENLEE, JJ. GREENLEE, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Bely

nthia Ross a p p e a l s h e r conviction in Rankin County Circuit Court of sim ple assault of a vulnerable a dult. She asserts that (1) h er indictm ent was f atally def ective because

two headings that originally r e a d “Madison” County were stricken and overwritten with “Rankin,” ( 2 ) t h e indictm ent erroneously lists the grand-jury f orem an as that of the “Madison” C ounty G rand Jury , not “Rankin,” and (3) sim ple assault o f a vulnerable adult is not a f elony . W e af

f irm

. ¶2. Ross was indicted on June 4, 2015. On Novem ber 16, 2015, Ross m oved to quash the indictm ent b ecause “it did not contain t he notarized signature of the F orem an of the RankinCounty , M ississippi G rand Jury .” On Novem ber 23, 2015, the circuit court heard a rgum ent

on the m otion. The circuit court considered the ref erences to “Madison” C o unty and determ ined that they were a scrivener’s e rror. Trial counsel f or th e S t a t e a d m itted that she noticed the error p rior to f iling the indictm ent with the circuit clerk. She corrected the error by striking out “Madison” and writing “Rankin” over it. She also p laced her initials next to the changes. Af

ter c onf erring with t h e c l e r k and reviewing the court’s records, the circuit

court conf

irm ed that the f

orem an who signed the i ndictm ent was the actual f orem an f or the Rankin County Grand Jury during the January 2015 term (the s am e term i n which Ross was indicted). The circuit court then m ade a f inding on t he record that the signature was in f act that o f the f

orem an f or the Rankin Count y G r a n d J u r y , a nd when asked if t here was still “[ a]ny dispute about that[ ,]” Ross’s counsel replied, “ No, Judge.” The circuit court also determ ined that the indictm ent did give the county i n which the indictm ent was brought with the scrivener’s e rror a nd correction by the State. A t t r i a l, Ross was f ound guilty o f sim

ple assault of a vulnerable adult and sentenced t o f ive y ears in the c ustody of the M i s s i s sippi Departm ent of

Corrections. ¶3. Ross does n ot n ow d ispute that the f orem an who sign e d t h e i n d i c t me n t w a s the f orem an f or the Rankin County Grand Jury

. Ra t h e r, she asserts that her indictm ent was

“ def i cient on the f

ace and does not m eet the requirem ents as set f orth” because the (1) incorrect county

was listed in two headings of the indictm e nt, (2) the incorrect county was listed f o r the grand-jury f

orem an, and (3) the circuit clerk listed was f o r the wrong county

. ¶4. Although it was s lipshod to u s e a f o r m i n d i c t me n t listing M adison County f or a

2proceeding in Rankin County , t he circuit court under these f acts was correct that listing the incorrect county is nothing m ore than a harm less s c rivener’s e rror. See Barnes v
. State , 51 So. 3d 986, 9 89-90 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). Secondly , listing the i ncorrect circuit clerk

was also a harm less s crivener’s error, m ore precisely , a ty pographical e rror. The indictm ent is f ile-stam ped and seal-stam

ped exclus ively by t he Rankin County C ircuit Clerk, and the ty po was stricken with the correct circuit clerk’s nam e substituted. ¶5. N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g those harm less errors, t he county in which the indi c t me n t w a s brought m

ust be included in the indictm ent. U RCCC 7.06. 1 But “[ t]he m ajor purpose of an indictm ent i s to f

urnish the a ccused su c h a d e s c r i p tion of t he charges against [ her] as will enable [ her] to adequately prepare [ her] def ense.” Campbell v
. State , 749 So. 2d 1208, 1210 ( ¶ 7 ) ( Miss. Ct. A pp. 1999). And “[ s]o long a s a f air reading o f t he indictm ent, tak e n a s a who l e , clearly describes the nature and c ause of the charge against the accused, the indictme n t i s l egally suf

f icient.” Farris v. State , 764 S o. 2d 411, 421 (¶20) ( Miss. 2000). Here, the body of the indictm ent alleged the crim e occurred in Rankin County , a nd Ross does

not dispute that she was i ndicted in Rankin County

. W e f ind the circuit court was correct in f inding that the indictm ent suf f iciently stated the correct c ounty in which the indictm ent was brought. W e f

i nd this issue is without m erit. ¶6. Lastly , Ross reasserts that the trial court erred in f inding her guilty of “ F elony Sim ple Assault of a Vulnerable Adult as charged in the indictm ent” in its written f i nal order, because

1 T h e U n if

o r m R u les o f C i rcu it an d C o u n ty C o u rt relativ e to crim in al p ractice w ere recen tly rep laced b y th e M ississip p i R u les o f C rim in al P ro ced u re, ef f ectiv e Ju ly 1 , 2 0 1 7

. B u t b ecau se th e f

o rm er ru les w ere in ef

f ect at th e relev an t tim e, R u le 7

. 0 6 ap p l ies to R o ss’s case. 3the crim e she was charged with is not a f elony . But it is. See State v. Hawkins , 145 So. 3d 636, 641 (¶11) (Miss. 2014) (“[ S]im ple assault of a vulnerable p e r s o n . . . is in f a c t a f elony .”). The issue is without m erit. ¶7. Ross’s conviction of sim ple assault o f a vulnerable adult and sentence of f ive y ears in the custody of

the Mississippi Departm ent of Corrections are af

f irm ed. ¶8. AFFIRMED. L E E , C . J . , I R

VING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., B A R N E S , I S H E E , C A R L T O N , F A I R , WILSON AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR.

4