Opinion ID: 1101124
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was this issue preserved for review?

Text: ¶ 6. White failed to raise this issue at trial. He first raises the issue in his appeal brief, but he failed to cite any authority in support of his position. In Wright v. State, 540 So.2d 1 (Miss. 1989), a multi-count indictment was returned against the defendant charging him with two separate burglaries of the same house. The defendant claimed that his two entrances into the house constituted one continuous crime. Id. at 4. This Court addressed whether the defendant had preserved the issue of double jeopardy for review: The appellant did not at any time in trial court mount an attack on the indictment on any ground, nor did he at any time prior to, during or after the trial, raise a double jeopardy question. The appellant had not cited any authority for this assignment and procedurally should be barred by this Court. Smith v. State, 445 So.2d 227, 229 (Miss. 1984). Wright, 540 So.2d at 4. Although this Court found that the issue should be procedurally barred, this Court addressed the double jeopardy issue and found that it was without merit. Id. at 5. ¶ 7. In determining that the issue of double jeopardy should be procedurally barred, this Court cited Smith v. State, 445 So.2d 227 (Miss. 1984). In Smith, this Court held that the [a]ppellant does not show how or why double jeopardy will apply in a situation such as presents itself here. Under these circumstances the principle stated in Ramseur v. State, 368 So.2d 842 (Miss. 1979) applies. Smith, 445 So.2d at 229. In Ramseur, the appellant failed to cite any authority in support of his assignments of error. Where assignments of error are unsupported by argument and authority, the court does not, as a general rule, consider them. Ramseur, 368 So.2d at 844 (emphasis added). ¶ 8. The principle stated in Ramseur is not an absolute bar. It merely points out that this Court may, in its discretion, choose not to review an assignment of error that is not supported by authority. When this Court is confronted with a situation in which the appellant claims that he has been charged and convicted more than once for the same offense, however, this Court finds that the issue warrants review as plain error.