Linda Yennie v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CP-00712-COA
LINDA YENNIE
APPELLANT
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:
APPELLEE
3/5/2002
HON. STEPHEN B. SIMPSON
HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
LINDA YENNIE (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: CHARLES W. MARIS
CONO A. CARANNA, II
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
AFFIRMED - 05/20/2003
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE MCMILLIN, C.J., LEE AND IRVING, JJ.
MCMILLIN, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Linda Yennie pled guilty in 1999 to one count of burglary and received a seven year sentence. The
imposition of the sentence was suspended and Yennie was placed on supervised probation for three years.
The trial court later revoked her probation after a hearing in which Yennie admitted that she had violated
the terms of her probation. The court ordered her to serve the entire seven year sentence. Yennie
subsequently filed a motion for post-conviction relief alleging that she received ineffective assistance of
counsel at the revocation hearing. The circuit court denied her motion without a hearing and Yennie
appealed that decision to this Court. We affirm.
¶2.
Yennie alleged in her motion that she had retained an attorney to represent her at the revocation
hearing but that the attorney did not appear. As a result, she alleged, she “could offer the court no evidence
in my case.” The record before us does not include a transcript of the revocation hearing. Yennie does
not allege that she made the circuit court aware that she had expected to be represented at the hearing, nor
does she set out what evidence she was unable to present that might have resulted in a different outcome
had the court only been aware of it.
¶3.
Though there are certain due process protections afforded a defendant in a revocation proceeding,
there is no Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel in every instance. Riely v. State, 562 So. 2d 1206,
1209 (Miss. 1990). Depending on the issues involved in the revocation, there may be situations where
counsel is required to ensure that the defendant is afforded a fair hearing. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S.
778, 790 (1973); Ex parte Laird, 305 So. 2d 357, 358 (Miss. 1974). However, there is no contention
that this case is one where the issues were such that counsel was absolutely required. Thus, we are not
confronted with an error of constitutional proportion solely by virtue of the fact that Yennie did not have
an attorney to represent her.
¶4.
Certainly, the unexplained failure by retained counsel to appear at a scheduled court date such as
a revocation hearing–assuming strictly for sake of argument the truth of Yennie’s assertions to that
effect–would fall below the reasonable standard of competence for an attorney under the test adopted in
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). However, in order to warrant relief, the movant
must also show that, but for the deficient performance, there was a substantial likelihood of a more
favorable outcome. Id.
2
¶5.
Without any indication of what pertinent evidence or legal argument Yennie was prevented from
presenting to the court for consideration, it is impossible to conclude that counsel’s alleged failure to appear
altered the outcome of this revocation hearing. Because Yennie has failed to make the required showing
of any likelihood of prevailing on this second prong of the Strickland test, we conclude that the circuit court
was correct in denying relief on Yennie’s motion.
¶6.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY DENYING
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED
TO HARRISON COUNTY.
KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
3
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.
