Opinion ID: 865153
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rights of Defendants

Text: ¶42. In Duncan’s brief on appeal, he states, “Mississippi law states that Judges have a duty to protect the rights of defendants even if no objections are made,” and he cites to Livingston v. State, 525 So. 2d 1300 (Miss. 1988), quoting a passage from the Court’s opinion. Nothing else is stated by Duncan in this assignment of error. Duncan makes absolutely no attempt to point the Court in the direction of any alleged rights that were violated. Likewise, Duncan does not provide any analysis of whether the rights that were allegedly violated constituted constitutional rights, or fundamental rights, to qualify as an exception to the rule that objections must be first raised in the trial court to avail themselves of appellate review. ¶43. Duncan neither sets forth any argument nor provides us with any clues as to the relevance of the cited case. This Court has repeatedly held that where the appellant provides no meaningful argument in support of an assignment of error raised, the issue is waived on appeal. See King v. State, 857 So. 2d 702, 716 (Miss. 2003); Jones v. State, 841 So. 2d 115, 20 138 (Miss. 2003); see also Clay v. State, 881 So. 2d 323, 329 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). As there is no assignment of error or meaningful argument raised by Duncan for this Court to review, we deem Duncan’s issue waived on appeal.