Christopher A. Groves a/k/a Christopher Groves v. State of Mississippi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: October 26, 2021
• Docket: 2020-KA-01059-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2020-KA-01059-COA

CHRISTOPHER A. GROVES A/K/A APPELLANT CHRISTOPHER GROVES

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/25/2020 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MARK SHELDON DUNCAN COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LEAKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ASHLEY LAUREN SULSER DISTRICT ATTORNEY: STEVEN SIMEON KILGORE NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 10/26/2021 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND McDONALD, JJ.

WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Christopher Groves was convicted of theft of an automobile and sentenced to serve

five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Finding no

arguable issues on appeal, Groves’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Lindsey v.

State, 939 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 2005). Groves was granted time to file a supplemental brief pro

se, but he elected not to do so. No issues were raised on appeal, and this Court’s review of

the record has revealed no reversible errors. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the circuit

court. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Early on the afternoon of August 19, 2019, Candice Primer went to Piggy Wiggly in

Carthage, Mississippi. At the time, she was driving a black 2005 Nissan Altima that her

parents owned. Primer parked in front of some vending machines, and on her way into the

store she noticed Groves standing nearby. Once inside, Primer realized that she had left her

money in the car. When she retrieved her money, she inadvertently left her keys in the car.

Less than ten minutes later, after paying for her groceries and leaving the store, Primer

noticed that her car was no longer in the parking lot. She called her mother and then the

police.

¶3. Primer’s mother picked her up from Piggly Wiggly and they drove around in search

of the missing car. Primer’s friends notified her that the car was at McDonald’s. In the

meantime, a be-on-the-lookout notice had been placed on the car, and as Investigator Stephen

Bell was patrolling, searching for the car, he saw a car matching the description of the

Primers’ car in the McDonald’s parking lot. After ascertaining that the car tag and VIN

number matched those of the missing car, the police arrested Groves in a parking lot near

McDonald’s.

¶4. Groves was taken to the police station and interviewed by Investigators Stephen Bell

and Taylor Parker. Groves declined to give a written statement. He told the police that he

had gone to Piggly Wiggly to buy meat, and when he realized he had forgotten his EBT card,

he started walking home. As Groves was walking, he allegedly was approached by a white

man in a black car. The man advised Groves that the car was stolen and asked if he wanted

2 to buy it. Groves told the police that he bought the car for $500 and drove it to McDonald’s.

¶5. A Leake County grand jury indicted Groves in February 2020 for one count of

automobile theft in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated sections 97-17-41(1) (Rev.

2014) and 97-17-42 (Rev. 2014). The indictment was subsequently amended to charge

Groves as a habitual offender pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81

(Supp. 2018). On September 14, 2020, following a jury trial in circuit court, Groves was

found guilty as charged and sentenced to serve five years in MDOC’s custody.1 Groves filed

a post-trial motion for a new trial, which was denied on October 13, 2020. A notice of

appeal was then filed.

DISCUSSION

¶6. In Lindsey, the Mississippi Supreme Court adopted a framework “to govern cases

where appellate counsel represents an indigent criminal defendant and does not believe his

or her client’s case presents any arguable issues on appeal[.]” Lindsey, 939 So. 2d at 748

(¶18). First, “[c]ounsel must file and serve a brief in compliance with Mississippi Rule of

Appellate Procedure 28(a)(1)-[(5), (8)].” Id. In the brief,

counsel must certify that there are no arguable issues supporting the client’s appeal, and he or she has reached this conclusion after scouring the record thoroughly, specifically examining: (a) the reason for the arrest and the circumstances surrounding arrest; (b) any possible violations of the client’s right to counsel; (c) the entire trial transcript; (d) all rulings of the trial court; (e) possible prosecutorial misconduct; (f) all jury instructions; (g) all exhibits, whether admitted into evidence or not; and (h) possible misapplication of the law in sentencing.

1 There was a question about the timeliness of the amendment of the indictment to reflect Groves’s status as a habitual offender, so the judge declined to sentence him under the habitual-offender statute.

3 Id.

¶7. Counsel is then required to forward a copy of the brief to the client, informing the

client that the record contains no arguable issues and advising the client that he has a right

to file a pro se brief. Id. Next, this Court will “determine, based on [our] review of the

record and any pro se brief filed, if there is any arguable issue.” Johnson v. State, 307 So.

3d 500, 502 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020). In the event this Court finds any arguable issue, we

“will require appellate counsel to submit supplemental briefing on that issue ‘regardless of

the probability of the defendant’s success on appeal.’” Id. (quoting Lindsey, 939 So. 2d at

748 (¶18)). Finally, “[o]nce briefing is complete, [we will] . . . consider the case on the

merits and render a decision.” Id.

¶8. In this instance, Groves’s appellate counsel filed a brief in compliance with Lindsey

stating that Groves’s case presents no arguable issues for appeal. After being informed that

he could file a supplemental brief pro se, Groves failed to submit a brief to the Court. Upon

review of the record, we have identified no arguable issue that would warrant supplemental

briefing nor any reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶9. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY, SMITH AND EMFINGER, JJ., CONCUR.