Opinion ID: 1919348
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prosecution Conduct.

Text: ś 19. Hodges argues that the State, in conjunction with Assistant District Attorney Jim Kitchens, knowingly and willfully concocted a line of examination to demonstrate that Hodges received a lenient sentence recommendation for his prior burglary charge. Hodges argues that the State improperly crossed Johnnie Hodges at the sentencing hearing regarding the prior burglary and that the State also improperly crossed Hodges about the same information. Hodges claims that the State did not have an evidentiary basis for these questions. The pertinent parts of the cross of Ms. Hodges during the sentencing phase is as follows: Q. Ms. Hodges, you testified that Ms. Tatum had said something that she had done everything she could to keep him out of the RID program; is that what you said? A. That's what she said to me the day she found her son dead. Yes, she did say that to me. Q. But actually what happened was Ms. Tatum had told the defense counsel for your son back when he plead guilty back in November of 1998 that she did want him to go to the RID program, hadn't she? A. You asked me was I there. I was there. All I know I heard the prosecuting attorney said that Ms. Tatum said she wanted Quintez to have seven years in the pen. . . . Q. Isn't it true that Mr. Kitchens representing the State asked the judge, not this court but another judge, asked the judge to give your son 15 years in the penitentiary? Isn't that what he asked him to do or do you recall? A. I don't recall. All I heard is seven years. Q. And isn't it true that the information was provided to the Court by your son's lawyer that Ms. Tatum had requested that this defendant be sentenced instead to the RID program? A. I didn't hear that either. Q. Of course, Ms. Tatum would have been interceding on behalf of your son if that were true, is that not correct? A. I don't know. I didn't hear none of that. The pertinent parts of the cross of Hodges during the sentencing phase is as follows: Q. And you plead guilty to a charge of burglary of Ms. Tatum's house; is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And during the course of that plea process, at one point in time your lawyer stood up and told the judge that Ms. Tatum did not want you to go to the penitentiary, didn't he? A. Not in my presence. Q. You didn't see that? A. No, sir. Q. Isn't it true that also the Assistant District Attorney who was handling the case, Jim Kitchens, stood up and affirmed that that was so; that that was, in fact, what Ms. Tatum requested? Didn't he do that? A. No, sir. Q. You don't recall that happening at all? A. No, sir. Q. Do you recall that the State of Mississippi asked and sought that you be sent to the penitentiary for 15 years? Do you recall that? A. I didn't know nothing about that. Q. You didn't know nothing about that either. But you know that the judge in this instance agreed and thought it best to sentence you to the RID program to give you a chance; is that not correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And he gave you a chance, didn't he? A. Yes, sir. Q. He gave you a big break, didn't he? A. I ain't going to say it's a big break. Q. You don't think that being charged by three indictments with three burglaries and one sexual assault battery getting to go to the RID program was a break? You don't think so? A. Well, those charges was not proven. ś 20. In rebuttal the State called Assistant District Attorney Jim Kitchens, who participated in the prior burglary charge and plea hearing, to testify about the plea agreement and hearing. Hodges claims that the entire testimony of Assistant District Attorney Kitchens was false. Hodges claims that the falsity of the testimony is supported by comparing Kitchen's testimony with the court transcript of the plea hearing for the prior burglary. Hodges attaches this prior plea hearing as an exhibit to his brief. However, the evidence that Hodges submits in support of this claim, consisting of the prior burglary plea hearing, is not contained in the trial record of the case sub judice. This Court has denied Hodges' motion to expand the record to include this information. Therefore, consideration of this evidence is barred. This Court has repeatedly held, we will not consider matters which do not appear in the record and must confine ourselves to what actually appears in the record. Moreover, we cannot decide an issue based on assertions in the briefs alone; rather, issues must be proven by the record. Medina v. State, 688 So.2d 727, 732 (Miss. 1996). ś 21. Hodges argues that according to Branch v. State, 882 So.2d 36, 49 (Miss. 2004), this Court is allowed to consider such extraneous evidence not in the record. However, this Court in Branch clearly set forth that such appendices which were not part of the trial record were to be considered only on the Atkins [v. Virgina, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002)] and ineffective assistance of counsel issues. Here, during oral argument, defense counsel conceded that he was not pursuing this issue as ineffective assistance of counsel, but rather was doing so under the theory of prosecutorial misconduct. Also, this Court has recently amended Rule 22 of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure. Even though this amendment does not apply to the case sub judice, this Court holds that the plea hearing, which is not in the record, is barred from consideration and Branch does not allow this Court to consider such extraneous evidence. To make it clear what this Court can consider on direct appeal in future cases, Rule 22 has been amended to state that [i]ssues which may be raised in post-conviction proceedings may also be raised on direct appeal if such issues are based on facts fully apparent from the record. M.R.A.P. 22 (emphasis added). ś 22. Furthermore, no objections were made during the cross of Johnnie Pearl Hodges or Hodges. Hodges is also procedurally barred because this issue was not raised at trial. See Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632, 634 (Miss.1988) (trial judge cannot be put in error on matter not presented for decision); Walker v. State, 823 So.2d 557, 561 (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (failure to raise issue at trial court level bars consideration at appellate level). Because this issue is raised in the direct appeal of a capital case, this Court will consider the merits of Hodges' argument without considering the extraneous evidence. ś 23. Hodges argues that the State did not have any evidentiary basis to ask those questions on cross. This Court has stated that it is inflammatory and extremely prejudicial for questioning without evidentiary basis. Hosford v. State, 525 So.2d 789, 793 (Miss.1988). However, the State did offer the testimony of Assistant District Attorney Jim Kitchens about the prior plea bargain. The State specifically asked Kitchens the same questions that were asked during the cross of Ms. Hodges and the defendant. The State produced the testimony that proved there was an evidentiary basis for the questions elicited during the cross of Ms. Hodges and the defendant. ś 24. Hodges also claims that all of Kitchens' testimony was false and that the knowing use of false evidence deprived Hodges of a fair trial and due process. To prevail on this due process claim, Hodges must show that (1) the testimony was false, (2) the testimony was material to the verdict, and (3) the prosecutor knew or believed the testimony to be false. Westley v. Johnson, 83 F.3d 714, 726 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Blackburn, 9 F.3d 353, 357 (5th Cir.1993)). Hodges has not proved these elements. He has not offered any proof that Kitchens' testimony was false, that it was material to the verdict or that the State knew that it was false. Hodges, in his brief, claims that it is false but offers nothing to support this claim nor were there any objections to this testimony during the sentencing phase. Therefore, this issue is without merit.