Opinion ID: 1116568
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: claims (1) and (2) defective indictments

Text: The first claim alleges the indictments were fatally defective because the record does not identify them as the indictments returned by the grand jury of Lowndes County. The second claim alleges the indictments were defective because they were not accompanied by the affidavit of the grand jury foreman. These are technical and non-jurisdictional deficiencies that were waived when Brooks failed to timely raise them in the trial court. See Stewart v. State, 377 So.2d 1067 (Miss. 1980), and Jones v. State, 356 So.2d 1182 (Miss. 1978), which recognize that the defects complained about are procedural in nature. These deficiencies were also waived when Brooks entered his voluntary pleas of guilty. Moreover, it is not at all clear that Brooks would have been entitled to relief even if these claims had been timely asserted. This is because the indictments charging Brooks with various and sundry offenses were each signed by the foreman of the grand jury and marked filed by the circuit clerk of Lowndes County. This provided sufficient legal evidence to negate the claims made by Brooks. See § 99-7-9, Miss. Code Ann. (Supp. 1990); McCormick v. State, 377 So.2d 1070, 1073-74 (Miss. 1979) (Indictment was not invalidated due to fact it was not accompanied by foreman's affidavit where records reflected that entire grand jury was before the court and filed indictment and where there was no prejudice to the defendant); Stewart v. State, supra . Finally, Brooks' allegations were too bare-bone and conclusory to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Simply because the indictments in question do not, on their face, indicate they were concurred in by twelve (12) or more members of the grand jury and that at least fifteen (15) members were present during all deliberations, does not mean it wasn't so. See § 99-39-9(1)(e), Miss. Code Ann. (Supp. 1990), which requires the movant to state in his pleading how or by whom his facts will be proven. Here the record suggests there was compliance with the old, more laborious method of presenting indictments to the grand jury. McCormick v. State, supra . Given the circumstances confronting us, we hold that both of Brooks' claims concerning deficiencies in the indictments are procedurally barred by virtue of § 99-39-21(1) because they were not timely asserted. Furthermore, Brooks has not even remotely made a showing of cause and actual prejudice as those terms are defined by § 99-39-21(4) and (5).