Opinion ID: 1598918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the court erred by failing to grant requested preliminary hearing.

Text: ¶ 14. Burns first alleges that he was denied a valuable right when he was denied a preliminary hearing prior to his indictment. After a hearing on the matter, the justice court judge determined that Burns was not entitled to a preliminary hearing because the matter had already been presented to the Lee County Grand Jury. In his brief, Burns argues that he had not been served with capias and did not know whether he had actually been indicted. The judge reserved his ruling until he could rule in writing. Judge Carr's written ruling stated that while there had not been a formal report of the indictment, he had evidence that Burns had been indicted by the Lee County Grand Jury. The record reflects that the Lee County Grand Jury returned a true bill against Burns on December 13, 1995, and Burns requested a preliminary hearing by Motion dated November 9, 1995. ¶ 15. This Court held, in Mayfield v. State, 612 So.2d 1120 (Miss.1992), that once a defendant has been indicted by a grand jury, the right to a preliminary hearing is deemed waived. Id. at 1129. This Court further stated in Mayfield that the fundamental purpose of a preliminary hearing is to `determine whether there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and whether the defendant committed it.' Id. ( quoting Avery v. State, 555 So.2d 1039, 1046 (Miss.1990)(Roy Noble Lee, C.J., dissenting in part)). ¶ 16. Burns argues in his brief that his case is distinguishable from Mayfield because in Mayfield, the motion for a preliminary hearing was filed seven months after he was indicted. In the case sub judice, Burns moved for a preliminary hearing approximately one month before he was formally indicted by the Grand Jury. ¶ 17. The justice court judge conducted a partial preliminary hearing in November, 1995 which he aborted upon receiving an oral report that an indictment had been returned against Burns. The justice court judge clearly had no basis for aborting the preliminary hearing based upon a report of an indictment which had never been served or filed. ¶ 18. Burns sought to have the circuit court correct the justice court error after his indictment. The circuit court declined to do so on the basis that Burns had failed to show any prejudice in not having been afforded a preliminary hearing. ¶ 19. We are in agreement with the trial court. Although the justice court judge had no basis for aborting the preliminary hearing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the error was harmless.