Clyde Junior Cantrell v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-KA-00323-COA
CLYDE JUNIOR CANTRELL
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
12/07/2000
HON. LEE J. HOWARD
LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
TIMOTHY RAY WADSWORTH
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JOHN R. HENRY JR.
FORREST ALLGOOD
CRIMINAL - FELONY
SEXUAL BATTERY: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM
OF 10 YEARS
AFFIRMED - 05/14/2002
6/10/2002; denied 8/20/2002
9/19/2002
BEFORE KING, P.J., BRIDGES, MYERS, AND CHANDLER, JJ.
MYERS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Clyde Cantrell was arrested for the sexual battery of a minor. Cantrell was convicted in the Circuit
Court of Lowndes County, Honorable Lee J. Howard presiding, and sentenced to serve ten years in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Cantrell filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict or, alternatively, new trial which was summarily denied by the trial court. Aggrieved by this
decision, Cantrell perfected the present appeal asserting the following issues:
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT CANTRELL A
MISTRIAL;
2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT STRUCK A JUROR FOR
CAUSE AT THE REQUEST OF THE STATE;
3. WHETHER THE DESTROYED TRANSCRIPT OF CANTRELL'S SENTENCING
HEARING WARRANTS REVERSAL AND REMAND OF HIS SENTENCE;
4. WHETHER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ERRORS OCCURRING AT TRIAL
WARRANT REVERSAL OF CANTRELL'S CONVICTION; AND
5. WHETHER THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
THE EVIDENCE.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶2. Cantrell allegedly sexually abused his minor stepdaughter repeatedly over the course of a one year
period. The child came forward and was examined by a medical doctor who discovered that her hymen
had been ruptured and vagina penetrated. The victim testified that Cantrell had fondled her breasts and
penetrated her with his fingers. Cantrell was arrested and charged with sexual battery.
¶3. A potential juror was struck from the jury venire for cause by the trial court at the request of the State.
The potential juror stated that she had prior dealings with one of the State's witnesses that caused her to
have bad feelings towards the witness and could affect how she viewed the evidence. The potential juror
had already been excused by the court for the second day of the trial for personal reasons.
¶4. At trial the State offered as evidence a letter written from Cantrell to the victim's mother. The letter was
read aloud by the victim's mother and the State inquired of the witness where in the letter Cantrell denied
doing the acts charged. Cantrell objected and moved that the trial court declare a mistrial. The trial court
refused to declare a mistrial but sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the question.
The jury found Cantrell guilty and the trial court ordered a presentence investigation. The transcript of the
sentencing hearing was destroyed when a tree fell on the court reporter's house. Cantrell received a ten year
sentence in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Cantrell moved for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, new trial. The trial court denied this motion and Cantrell filed
the present appeal.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT CANTRELL A
MISTRIAL.
¶5. Cantrell contends in his first point of error that the trial court erred when it refused to grant his motion
for a mistrial. While questioning the victim's mother, the State introduced into evidence a letter written by
Cantrell addressed to the victim's mother. After the mother read the letter aloud, the State asked her where
in the letter Cantrell denied committing the acts of which he was presently accused. Cantrell objected and
moved that the trial court grant a mistrial as this question compelled Cantrell to testify to deny the
allegations, thus violating his Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. The trial court refused
to grant a mistrial but sustained the objection and admonished the jury to disregard the State's question.
Where a trial court sustains a defendant's objection and instructs the jury to disregard the question, the
remedial acts of the trial court are deemed sufficient to remove any taint of prejudice from the jurors' minds
as the jury is presumed to follow the trial court's instructions. Strahan v. State, 729 So. 2d 800, 808 (¶34)
(Miss. 1998). As the trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the State's
question, any prejudice created by the question was removed. This issue is without merit.
2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT STRUCK A JUROR FOR
CAUSE AT THE REQUEST OF THE STATE.
¶6. Cantrell contends in his next point of error that the trial court erred when it struck a potential juror for
cause at the request of the State. The potential juror stated during voir dire that she had prior dealings with
one of the State's witnesses and that ill feelings created by those dealings could cause her to not objectively
view the witness's testimony. This same juror had previously obtained permission from the trial court to be
absent on what was the second day of trial. Cantrell presented this as a potential point of error in his
appellate brief but has not supported his argument by citation or authority. Issues of error that are not
supported by citation or authority are treated as abandoned. Reaves v. State, 749 So. 2d 295, 298 (¶10)
(Miss. Ct. App. 1999). It is Cantrell's duty to provide support and authority for any point of error. Id. This
issue is procedurally barred from review by this Court.
3. WHETHER THE DESTROYED TRANSCRIPT OF CANTRELL'S SENTENCING
HEARING WARRANTS REVERSAL AND REMAND OF HIS SENTENCE.
¶7. Cantrell contends in his next point of error that the destruction of the transcript of his sentencing hearing
warrants the reversal of his sentence. Cantrell asserts that he received an excessive sentence as a result of
testimony elicited at the sentencing hearing. Cantrell is required to exhibit specific prejudice suffered
because of the missing portions of the record in order for this Court to reverse and remand his case to the
trial court. Watts v. State, 717 So. 2d 314, 318 (¶9) (Miss. 1998). When a sentence is within the
statutory limits fixed by the statute, the sentence cannot be said to be excessive. Carter v. State, 450 So.
2d 67, 69 (Miss. 1984). Cantrell was found guilty of sexual battery and sentenced to ten years in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The ten year sentence was well within the statutory
limits. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-101(1) (Rev. 2000). Cantrell has exhibited no prejudice resulting from a
portion of the transcript being destroyed as the sentence was within the statutory limits. This issue is without
merit.
4. WHETHER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ERRORS OCCURRING AT TRIAL
WARRANT REVERSAL OF CANTRELL'S CONVICTION.
¶8. Cantrell contends in his next point of error that the cumulative effect of the errors occurring during the
course of the trial warrant a reversal of his conviction. "This Court may reverse a conviction and sentence
based upon the cumulative effect of errors that independently would not require reversal." King v. State,
788 So. 2d 93, 98 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). "However, where 'there is no reversible error in any part,
so there is no reversible error to the whole.' McFee v. State, 511 So. 2d 130, 136 (Miss. 1987)." Id. This
Court has examined all of the issues raised by Cantrell and determined that each is entirely without merit,
and therefore, this case should not be reversed because of cumulative error.
5. WHETHER THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
THE EVIDENCE.
¶9. Cantrell lastly raises in his appeal that the verdict returned against him was against the weight and
sufficiency of the evidence. Cantrell asserts these errors but neither presents any argument nor authority to
support his position. It is Cantrell's responsibility to support any issues with citation and authority. Reaves,
749 So. 2d at 298 (¶10). Issues unsupported by authority are deemed abandoned and are procedurally
barred from review by this Court. Id. Cantrell does not present any authority or argument in support of his
position on this issue. Accordingly, this issue is procedurally barred from review.
CONCLUSION
¶10. The issues presented by Cantrell in this appeal are without merit. The trial court did not err in refusing
to grant Cantrell a mistrial as instructing the jury to disregard the State's question was a sufficient remedy.
The destruction of the sentencing hearing transcript did not result in any prejudice to Cantrell as his sentence
was within the limits provided by statute. There was no cumulative error warranting the reversal of Cantrell's
conviction as each error submitted by Cantrell was wholly without merit. The remaining issues presented by
Cantrell are procedurally barred from review by this Court as Cantrell failed to provide authority and
arguments in support of his position.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF SEXUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCE OF TEN YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. ALL
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
