James Medlin v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CP-00360-COA
JAMES MEDLIN
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
02/27/2009
HON. ANDREW K. HOWORTH
MARSHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JAMES MEDLIN (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. GLENN WATTS
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIED MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF
AFFIRMED: 05/25/2010
BEFORE KING, C.J., BARNES AND MAXWELL, JJ.
KING, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
James Medlin was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to twenty years, with
five years suspended, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC).
Medlin filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which the trial court denied. Aggrieved,
Medlin appeals, raising one issue: whether his sentence was illegal. Finding no error, we
affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
On October 20, 2004, Medlin was indicted by a Marshall County grand jury for the
aggravated assault of Bobby Neal Mannis. The indictment listed the charging statute as
Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-7(3) (Supp. 2004), which proscribes simple
domestic violence. However, the body of the indictment charged, in pertinent part, that
Medlin “unlawfully, willfully and feloniously, purposely and knowingly cause[d] bodily
injury to Bobby Neal Mannis, with a vehicle, a deadly weapon[,] by running over him one
or [more] times, in violation of the provisions of section 97-3-7 . . . which offense is
punishable by imprisonment not exceeding twenty years . . . .”
¶3.
On November 7, 2005, Medlin was convicted in the Circuit Court of Marshall County
of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to serve twenty years, with five years suspended,
in the custody of the MDOC.
¶4.
Medlin filed a “motion to clarify sentence” in the trial court on June 13, 2008. The
trial court treated Medlin’s motion as a motion for post-conviction relief. In that motion,
Medlin alleged that his sentence was illegal because it exceeded the maximum penalty
provided by law. Specifically, Medlin argued that he should have been sentenced pursuant
to section 97-3-7(3), which provides a maximum sentence of ten years. The trial court found
that Medlin’s motion was without merit and denied the requested relief. Aggrieved, Medlin
timely filed his notice of appeal.
ANALYSIS
¶5.
This Court will not disturb the trial court’s denial of a motion for post-conviction
relief absent a finding that the trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous. Brown v. State,
731 So. 2d 595, 598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999). However, questions of law are reviewed de novo.
2
Id.
¶6.
Medlin argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum sentence provided by
Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-7(3) (Supp. 2009). Conversely, the State argues
that the listing of subsection three was merely a scrivener’s error, and Medlin was properly
sentenced for aggravated assault.
¶7.
An indictment serves as notice to the defendant of the charges against him. Golden
v. State, 968 So. 2d 378, 386 (¶28) (Miss. 2007). When reviewing an indictment, we
consider the substance of the indictment over the form of the indictment. Id. There is no
requirement that an indictment must include the statute number of the crimes charged.
Johnson v. State, 879 So. 2d 1057, 1060 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). Thus, the statute
number referenced in the indictment is of no consequence because we look to the substance
of the indictment to determine whether it sufficiently gave notice of the pending charges. See
Golden, 968 So. 2d at 386 (¶29).
¶8.
In Medlin’s indictment, the charging statute number was listed as section 97-3-7(3).
Section 97-3-7(3) proscribes simple domestic violence, and the statute provides a five-year
sentence to a ten-year sentence upon a defendant’s third or subsequent conviction of simple
domestic violence. However, the substance of Medlin’s indictment neither charged him with
simple assault nor alleged domestic violence.
¶9.
Instead, the substance of Medlin’s indictment charged him with the aggravated assault
of Mannis with a deadly weapon – a car. Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-7(2)
(Supp. 2009) provides, in pertinent part, that:
[A] person is guilty of aggravated assault if he . . . (b) attempts to cause or
3
purposefully or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly
weapon or other means likely to produce death or serious bodily harm; and,
upon conviction, he shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for
not more than one (1) year or in the Penitentiary for not more than twenty (20)
years.
The substance of Medlin’s indictment tracks the language of section 97-3-7(2). Thus, it is
clear that Medlin was charged with aggravated assault and not simple domestic violence.
¶10.
The listing of section 97-3-7(3) as the charging statute was merely a scrivener’s error.
The law is clear that “the incorrect citation of a statute number does not alone render an
indictment defective, but rather is ‘mere surplusage’ and not prejudicial to the defendant.”
Brown v. State, 944 So. 2d 103, 106 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Evans v. State, 916
So. 2d 550, 552 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005)). The substance of Medlin’s indictment clearly
charged him with aggravated assault under section 97-3-7(2), which provides a maximum
penalty of twenty years in the custody of the MDOC. Because the trial court properly
sentenced Medlin within the statutory guidelines, we find that Medlin’s sentence is not
illegal. See Moss v. State, 752 So. 2d 427, 430 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (finding that
there is no error in sentencing where the trial court sentences the defendant within the limits
set forth by the statute). This issue is without merit.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MARSHALL COUNTY
DENYING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO MARSHALL COUNTY.
LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS
AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
4
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.