Edward Lamont Neal v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-KA-02198-COA
EDWARD LAMONT NEAL
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
11/14/2007
HON. JAMES T. KITCHENS, JR.
LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
GEORGE T. HOLMES
STEVEN CARL WALLACE
JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD
FORREST ALLGOOD
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF FELONY ESCAPE AND
SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO
RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE
SENTENCE IMPOSED IN 2006-0289-CR1
AFFIRMED - 03/31/2009
BEFORE KING, C.J., ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
ROBERTS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
A jury sitting before the Lowndes County Circuit Court found Edward Lamont Neal
guilty of felony escape. The circuit court sentenced Neal to five years in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Aggrieved, Neal appeals. However, Neal
is represented by the Mississippi Office of Indigent Appeals. One of Neal’s attorneys has
filed a Lindsey brief in which he asserts there was no error in the circuit court proceedings.1
Having fulfilled our obligation to examine the record to determine whether there are
meritorious issues, we have found none. Accordingly, we find no error and affirm the
judgment of the circuit court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
As of December 2006, Neal, then seventeen years old, was on probation for felony
malicious mischief. Neal’s probation officer, Christian Campbell, testified that probationers
under her supervision were obligated to report to her on either the first or second Thursday
of each month. Campbell further testified that Neal did not report the first Thursday in
December 2006, so he was required to report to her on the second Thursday of that month,
which would have been Thursday, December 14, 2006.
¶3.
On that date, Campbell spoke to officers with the Columbus Police Department.
Those officers told Campbell that they needed to speak with Neal. At approximately 4:30
p.m., Neal called Campbell. Neal told Campbell that he would not be able to pay his fee that
day. Neal then asked whether he could meet with Campbell the following day. When Neal
told Campbell that he was in the parking lot of the probation office, Campbell told Neal
“since he was already there just to come on inside and [she] would talk to him at that time.”
Neal complied.
1
In Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743, 748 (¶18) (Miss. 2005), the Mississippi
Supreme Court modified the procedure that appellate counsel must follow when counsel
determines that there are no appealable issues within the record.
2
¶4.
According to Campbell:
[Neal] came into the office and I asked him if he had been to the police
department that morning. The police department had contacted me about
[Neal]. They needed to talk to him. And I wanted to make sure that he had
followed those directions and he said he had. And I asked him briefly what
that was about and we talked about that briefly.
Campbell explained that she already knew what the police wanted to speak to Neal about,
but she wanted to hear Neal’s version to determine whether he was being truthful with her.
Campbell further explained that, after hearing Neal’s version, she was not satisfied that he
was being truthful. Campbell then asked Neal whether he had been using drugs. Neal
responded that he would test positive for marijuana because he had used it two weeks earlier.
¶5.
Another probation officer, Nathan Blevins, was also in the room with Campbell and
Neal. According to Campbell, Neal “proceeded to tell [them] situations that did not add up
to what [they] already knew.” Campbell decided that they needed to take Neal into custody.
Campbell placed Neal in handcuffs, and Blevins went to his office to get his car keys. While
Blevins was gone, Neal ran out of Campbell’s office. Neal continued out the front door of
the probation office.
Campbell and Blevins attempted to catch Neal, but they were
unsuccessful because it was dark outside, and by Campbell’s description, Neal could run
“like a deer.”
¶6.
The Columbus Police Department and the Lowndes County Sheriff’s Department set
up a perimeter and deployed K-9 units, but their combined efforts were fruitless. Neal
evaded capture. Newspapers ran articles about Neal, and news stations featured him on the
“Crimestoppers” alerts. Members of Campbell’s office went by Neal’s house ten to fifteen
times in the next two to three days. They spoke with Neal’s extended family, but they did
3
not apprehend Neal until someone called in and informed authorities where they could find
Neal. Neal was finally recaptured in Lowndes County on January 16, 2007.
¶7.
Neal went to trial on November 14, 2007. The prosecution called Campbell as its first
and only witness during their case-in-chief. After the prosecution rested, Neal took the stand.
According to Neal, Campbell told him she would arrest him if he committed another felony.
Neal testified that Campbell did not arrest him or place him in handcuffs. Neal further
testified that Blevins was never in the room with them. Neal explained that after he talked
with Campbell, he simply walked out of the building and across the parking lot. After being
confronted with earlier testimony in which Neal testified that he had been placed in
handcuffs, Neal explained that Campbell did handcuff him, but she removed the handcuffs
before he walked out of the building. Neal concluded his testimony and rested his case.
¶8.
During the prosecution’s rebuttal, the prosecution called Blevins.
Blevins
corroborated Campbell’s testimony and disputed Neal’s testimony. That is, Blevins testified
that: Campbell placed Neal in handcuffs; the handcuffs were behind Neal’s back; and Neal
was not free to leave. Blevins further testified that he went to get his car keys, and while he
was gone, Neal ran. According to Blevins, Neal ran past his mother, who said, “Son, don’t
run.” Blevins testified that he chased Neal, but he was unable to catch him because Neal was
“real fast.” As previously mentioned, the jury found Neal guilty of felony escape. Neal
appeals.
ANALYSIS
¶9.
In Lindsey, the Mississippi Supreme Court detailed the process that must be followed
when appellate counsel for an indigent criminal defendant concludes there are no arguable
4
issues on appeal. To be precise, the supreme court stated as follows:
(1) Counsel must file and serve a brief in compliance with Mississippi Rule of
Appellate Procedure 28(a)(1)-(4),(7); see also [Smith v.] Robbins, 528 U.S.
[259,] 280-81 [(2000)] (stating that “counsel’s summary of the case’s
procedural and factual history, with citations of the record, both ensures that
a trained legal eye has searched the record for arguable issues and assists the
reviewing court in its own evaluation of the case.”).
(2) As a part of the brief filed in compliance with Rule 28, 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.
(3) Counsel must then send a copy of the appellate brief to the defendant,
inform the client that counsel could find no arguable issues in the record, and
advise the client of his or her right to file a pro se brief.
(4) Should the defendant then raise any arguable issue or should the appellate
court discover any arguable issue in its review of the record, the court must,
if circumstances warrant, require appellate counsel to submit supplemental
briefing on the issue, regardless of the probability of the defendant's success
on appeal.
(5) Once briefing is complete, the appellate court must consider the case on its
merits and render a decision.
Lindsey, 939 So. 2d at 748 (¶18) (internal citations and footnotes omitted).
¶10.
Neal’s attorney complied with the requirements of Lindsey. Neal’s attorney filed a
brief indicating that he “diligently searched the procedural and factual history of this criminal
action and scoured the record” and found no arguable issues for appeal. Neal’s attorney
specifically asserts that he examined: (1) the reasons for Neal’s arrest and the circumstances
surrounding it, (2) any possible violations of Neal’s right to counsel, (3) the entire transcript
5
and record, (4) the circuit court’s rulings, (5) possible prosecutorial misconduct, (6) all of the
jury instructions, (7) all exhibits, whether admitted or not, (8) possible misapplication of the
law in sentencing, (9) the indictment and all pleadings in the record, and (10) possible
ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Neal’s attorney further stated that he informed Neal
that he found no arguable issues and that he advised Neal of his right to file a pro se brief.
Neal did not file a pro se brief.
¶11.
After our own thorough review of the record, we find no issues that would require
supplemental briefing. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment of conviction and
sentence.
¶12. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONVICTION OF FELONY ESCAPE AND SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO RUN
CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IN 2006-0289-CR1 IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LOWNDES
COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE
AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR. MAXWELL, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
