Before McMILLIN, P.j., Coleman, And Southwick, JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Southwick, J., For The Court:
Stevens v. State, 96-KA-00389-COA
THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B
DATE OF JUDGMENT: FEBRUARY 23, 1996
TRIAL JUDGE: HONORABLE ROBERT WALTER BAILEY
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: ROBBERY BY USE OF A FIREARM (HABITUAL OFFENDER): SENTENCED TO SERVE A LIFE SENTENCE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PROBATION PAROLE SUSPENSION OR REDUCTION
Charles Andrew Stevens was convicted by a Lauderdale County Circuit Court jury of robbery by the use of a firearm. He appeals alleging that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. Additionally, Stevens claims that the trial court erred in allowing him to be cross-examined by the State concerning a notice of alibi that had been filed by his trial attorney in the court file. We disagree and affirm his conviction.
Between 7:00 and 8:00 P.M. on July 3, 1994, James Jones was walking near his sister's residence in Meridian. Two men approached him, ordered him to a nearby warehouse and robbed him of his jewelry and approximately $200 in cash. Jones recognized one of the individuals as a man he had previously seen who was known as "Charlie." After the robbers released him, Jones notified the police. He was taken to the police station and shown approximately 200 pictures. He positively identified one of the assailants in the photographic lineup. Jones again identified the same individual during a second photographic lineup and at trial. That person was Charlie Stevens.
Stevens was indicted and charged with the robbery. Prior to trial, Stevens's attorney filed a notice of alibi asserting that Stevens was at his mother's residence during the time of the offense. The notice identified three potential witnesses to substantiate the claim. The notice of alibi was not signed by Stevens but rather by his attorney. During the trial, none of the listed witnesses was called to testify and the State cross-examined him about the failure to pursue this alibi. The jury subsequently convicted ...