Opinion ID: 1931111
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Prosecute a Motion for Change of Venue

Text: ¶ 19. Jones complains that trial counsel filed a motion for change of venue but neither attached any affidavits thereto nor requested a hearing thereon. The motion was based on the inflammatory nature of the case, the small population of the community of Rolling Fork and Sharkey County, Mississippi, and the pre-trial publicity.... As a result, the Court was required to rule on the Motion based on responses from the jury pool qualified during the voir dire process at the beginning of the trial. If a separate hearing had been held, numerous witnesses could have been summoned to justify a change of venue. ¶ 20. The circuit court denied the motion for change of venue after voir dire had taken place. It stated: The Court, after sampling the vernary [sic] that was called was satisfied that there are sufficient jurors who do not know, and if they do or are aware of him, do under oath state to the Court that they could be fair and impartial to both the State and the Defense. Also the Court will note that there are 42 jurors of which 15 of those jurors are White, the remainder being Black. The population of Sharkey County is approximately 66 or 65 percent Black and 35 to 40 percent White and that works out [to] be about 38 percent of the jurors are White which is a good cross section that reflects the racial makeup of the county. The Court is satisfied that the jurors that are here can fairly try this case and the answers given to the court satisfied the Court that they could (1) do not have an intimate relationship with any of the parties concerned being the Defendant or the alleged victim in this case; and (2) that it is a fair cross section of the community in terms of demographics and therefore the Court will deny the Motion for Change of Venue. Jones has not presented any evidence that the circuit court's ruling was erroneous. Therefore, as far as the motion for change of venue pertained to the small population of Sharkey County, Jones's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit. ¶ 21. The circuit court did not address pretrial publicity in its ruling. To determine whether a change in venue should have been granted an appellate court looks to the level of pretrial publicity and prejudicial nature of the coverage. Holland v. State, 705 So.2d 307, 336 (Miss.1997). See also Hickson v. State, 707 So.2d 536, 542 (Miss.1997); Fisher v. State, 481 So.2d 203, 215 (Miss.1985). ¶ 22. Jones presents no evidence of the alleged pretrial publicity; therefore, his claim must fail. Davis v. State, 743 So.2d 326, 341 (Miss.1999).