Jimmy Charles McClain a/k/a Jimmie Charles McClain v. State of Mississippi

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Decided: August 29, 2024
• Docket: 2023-KA-01189-SCT
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2023-KA-01189-SCT

JIMMY CHARLES McCLAIN a/k/a JIMMIE CHARLES McCLAIN

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/14/2023 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CHARLES E. WEBSTER TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: ALISON LESLIE FLINT JAMIE MARIE BANKS WILBERT LEVON JOHNSON COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: QUITMAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: ZAKIA BUTLER GEORGE T. HOLMES ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: KATY TAYLOR SARVER DISTRICT ATTORNEY: BRENDA FAY MITCHELL NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 08/29/2024 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE KING, P.J., MAXWELL AND GRIFFIS, JJ.

MAXWELL, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A Quitman County jury found Jimmy Charles McClain guilty of possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon. McClain appealed. And his counsel filed a Lindsey1 brief

certifying that she scoured the record searching for any arguable issues to present to this

Court in good faith but found none.

1 Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 2005). ¶2. We also have searched the record and similarly conclude there are no arguable issues

to review. We thus affirm McClain’s conviction and sentence.

Background Facts & Procedural History

¶3. In July 2022, McClain lived with his mother in Quitman County. One night,

McClain’s nephew came by the house to check on his grandmother. The nephew found

McClain “talking crazy” and threatening his grandmother—McClain’s mother—with a black

handgun. “[N]ext thing you know,” the nephew testified, McClain “went to shooting” the

gun into the air. The nephew called 911.

¶4. When officers arrived, they found McClain sitting in the doorway of the tool shed.

McClain had a black 9 mm handgun in his lap and a shotgun at his side. As the officers

approached, McClain threatened to shoot them. One of the officers de-escalated the situation

and convinced McClain to hand over the two firearms.

¶5. A grand jury indicted McClain on one count of felon in possession of a firearm. Miss.

Code Ann. § 97-37-5(1) (Supp. 2021). The indictment clearly referenced McClain’s 1991

felony conviction for sale of a controlled substance. At trial, the State introduced a certified

copy of this conviction, over McClain’s counsel’s objection. The State also introduced, over

objection, photographs of the handgun and shotgun McClain had wielded and shot that night.

¶6. McClain testified in his defense. He admitted his 1991 felony conviction. But he

claimed he did not remember the incident that led to his present charge. McClain’s defense

was that he lacked intent to knowingly and willfully possess the firearms. McClain explained

that he takes multiple medications for a heart condition—and when he fails to take his

2 medication, he blacks out. As to the firearm incident, McClain claimed he had blacked out

in the tool shed and woke up in jail the next morning. On cross-examination, McClain

testified he was out of his medication. So he could not take it. But he had already testified

on direct examination that officers retrieved his medication from his house the next day. And

as he put it, he “had plenty to get me through the month.”

¶7. The jury found McClain guilty of felon in possession of a firearm. The trial judge

sentenced McClain to two years in prison, followed by three years’ post-release supervision.

¶8. McClain timely appealed. His appointed counsel filed a Lindsey brief. Lindsey, 939

So. 2d at 748. McClain did not file a pro se supplemental brief.

Discussion

¶9. “In Lindsey . . . , this Court established a procedure ‘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[.]’” Thomas v. State, 247 So. 3d 1252, 1256 (Miss.

2018) (alteration in original) (quoting Lindsey, 939 So. 2d at 748). In the appellant’s brief,

defense 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[.]” Lindsey,

939 So. 2d at 748. Specifically, counsel must certify he or she has examined: “(a) the reason

for the arrest and the circumstances surrounding the 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.” Id.

3 ¶10. Also, “[t]he attorney must send a copy of this brief to the defendant, inform the

defendant that no appealable issues have been identified, and notify the defendant of the right

to file a pro se brief.” Thomas, 247 So. 3d at 1256 (citing Lindsey, 939 So. 2d at 748).

“After receiving a Lindsey brief, this Court will review the record and any pro se brief filed

by the defendant to determine whether any arguable issue exists.” Id. (citing Lindsey, 939

So. 2d at 748).

¶11. McClain’s counsel complied with the Lindsey procedures. In her brief, counsel

certified she scoured the record and found no arguable basis for appeal. She further certified

she examined each potential area for error outlined in Lindsey. She also sent McClain a copy

of her brief. And on this Court’s order, McClain was also sent a copy of the trial court record

and given additional time to file a supplemental pro se brief. Though given the opportunity,

McClain did not file an additional brief.

¶12. We also have carefully reviewed the record and find no questionable issues requiring

supplemental briefing. Lindsey, 939 So. 2d at 748. McClain was ably represented by

appointed counsel. During voir dire, no challenges were made to either side’s for-cause or

peremptory strikes. And during trial, though defense counsel—citing lack of a proper

foundation—objected to the introduction of both the photographs of the firearms and the

certified copy of McClain’s 1991 conviction, the trial court properly overruled the objections.

The State’s evidence was sufficient to support McClain’s conviction. And though McClain

claimed he had no intent to possess his mother’s firearms because he had blacked out due to

not taking his medication, the jury was free to reject McClain’s testimony as not credible,

4 which they apparently did. Finally, McClain’s two-year sentence is well within the ten-year

statutory maximum. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-37-5(2) (Supp. 2021).

¶13. With no arguable basis to reverse McClain’s conviction and sentence, we affirm.

¶14. AFFIRMED.

RANDOLPH, C.J., KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ., COLEMAN, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.