Opinion ID: 1895021
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The trial court erred in trying the defendant in absentia and after entering judgment nisi on the defendant's bond.

Text: Sandoval appeared at a preliminary hearing and was in his attorney's office involved in trial preparation the day before the trial. When Sandoval failed to appear the morning of trial, his attorney moved for a continuance of one week. The circuit judge ruled Sandoval had waived his appearance; denied the motion; forfeited the appearance bond; entered a judgment nisi against the bond sureties; directed the clerk to issue a capias to bring him before the court; and proceeded with the trial. While taking up last minute matters before jury empanelment on Wednesday morning, December 3, 1990, counsel for Sandoval announced to the court that his client was not present. Counsel stated that Sandoval was present for pre-trial motions on Monday, December 1. Sandoval's attorney also informed the court that Sandoval met with him until 5:15 p.m. on Tuesday, December 2, and was informed by him to return to his office no later than 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday morning. Counsel informed the court that Sandoval did not appear in his office on Wednesday morning and that, as of 10:15 a.m., neither he nor Sandoval's bondsman had been able to locate Sandoval. Sandoval's attorney announced the defense was not ready for trial and moved for a one-week continuance to enable the attorney to locate Sandoval. The State announced it was ready for trial and objected to the motion for continuance on the grounds that Sandoval knew of the Wednesday trial date and voluntarily absented himself. The trial court, following the guidelines in Samuels v. State, 567 So.2d 843 (Miss. 1990), concluded: [He] voluntarily absented [himself] from what [he] knew to be a trial, a trial date, and I think [he has] waived [his] presence at trial, which is certainly [his] right to do, by [his] nonappearance this morning. The circuit judge then overruled the motion for a continuance and proceeded to try Samuels in absentia. Sandoval contends he was prejudiced by trial in absentia as follows: (1) He was not present to explain what he meant in custodial statements admitted in evidence; (2) He was not present to deny knowledge that the marijuana was present in the vehicle to contradict State's constructive possession theory; and (3) He was not present to demonstrate his inability to speak English to contradict State's claim that he knowingly consented to the search.