Catlin Williams v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2003-KA-01378-COA
CATLIN WILLIAMS
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:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
5/29/2003
HON. MIKE SMITH
PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
WILLIAM E. GOODWIN
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BILLY L. GORE
DEE BATES
CRIMINAL - FELONY
BURGLARY OF A BUILDING (COUNT I) AND
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BURGLARY OF A
BUILDING (COUNT II) -SENTENCED TO A
TERM OF EIGHTY-FOUR CONSECUTIVE
MONTHS ON COUNT I AND SIXTY
CONSECUTIVE MONTHS ON COUNT II IN
THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC. IT IS
ORDERED THAT COUNT I AND COUNT II RUN
CONCURRENTLY.
AFFIRMED: 9/07/2004
BEFORE KING, C.J., LEE, P.J. AND GRIFFIS, J.
KING, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Catlin Williams was tried in absentia on the charges of burglary of a building and conspiracy to
commit the crime of burglary of a building. Williams was convicted of the charges by the Pike County
Circuit Court. He was later taken into custody and sentenced to a term of eighty-four consecutive months
on count one and sixty consecutive months on count two, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections. These sentences were to be served concurrently. Aggrieved, Williams appeals, raising the
following issue as error:
¶2.
Whether the trial court erred in proceeding to trial in Williams' absence.
FACTS
¶3.
Upon returning to her residence/store in Progress, Mississippi, on October 20, 2002, at
approximately 11:00 p.m., Mrs. Patricia Smith indicated that her granddaughter, Tara Williams, noticed
that a window had been broken in the store and some items were missing. Ms. Williams called 911 to
advise that someone had broken into the store.
¶4.
During the investigation of the incident, Officer Davis Haygood of the Pike County Sheriff's
Department received the name of Catlin Williams as one of several potential suspects. Based on the
information received, a warrant was issued for Williams' arrest and faxed to the Washington Parish Sheriff's
Office in Franklinton, Louisiana.
¶5.
Officer Haygood received a phone call from Officer Bennie Creel of the Washington Parish
Sheriff's Office, advising him that Williams had been arrested on November 20, 2002. Haygood went to
the facility to interview Williams. Prior to interviewing Williams, Haygood read Williams his Miranda
rights. Williams signed the waiver of rights form. His statement was recorded on audiotape.
¶6.
In January 2003, Williams was indicted for the offenses of burglary of a building and conspiracy
to commit the crime of burglary of a building.
¶7.
Prior to the beginning of trial on April 16, 2003, the court noticed that Williams was not present.
Williams' attorney indicated that when he spoke with Williams two days prior to the trial date, Williams
2
stated that he would be present. Efforts were made to locate Williams, including telephone calls to his
residence and calls to area hospitals. A bench warrant for Williams' arrest was issued. The prosecutor
made an ore tenus motion asking the court to allow the State to proceed with the trial of Williams in
absentia, pursuant to Jefferson v. State, 807 So. 2d 1222 (Miss. 2002).
¶8.
The State then offered the sworn statement/testimony of Williams' attorney, Morris Sweatt. Sweatt
informed the court of the efforts he made to ensure that his client would be in court for trial. Sweatt did
not stipulate that Williams should be tried in absentia and objected to the court doing so.
¶9.
Sweatt stated that he last talked with Williams on April 14, and Williams assured him that he
wanted a trial. Sweatt indicated that Williams was informed to be at the courthouse at 9:00 a.m., April 16,
and indicated that he would. Sweatt made several attempts to call Williams.
¶10.
Don Evans, Sweatt's investigator, testified that he first called the bonding company because
Williams was absent from court. Evans then called Williams' residence and area hospitals in an attempt to
locate him.
¶11.
Attorney Bill Goodwin testified that Williams and his mother approached him at the courthouse on
April 15 inquiring about his services. Goodwin indicated that Williams advised him that his trial was set for
the next morning. Goodwin stated that he told Williams that because he was being represented by another
attorney, he could not speak with him about the matter.
¶12.
After review of the file, the court noted that Williams had been present on prior hearing dates. The
court determined that Williams had deliberately, knowingly, and intentionally absented himself from the trial
for the specific purpose of avoiding prosecution. The court allowed Williams to be tried in absentia.
3
¶13.
At the trial, the State offered the testimony of Officer Haygood, Patricia Smith, and Kim Smith.
The audiotape of Williams' statement was played for the jury as well. The jury found Williams guilty of both
charges.
¶14.
At the sentencing hearing on May 29, 2003, Williams was present and sentenced to serve a term
of eighty-four consecutive months on count one and sixty consecutive months on count two, in the custody
of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. These sentences were to be served concurrently.
¶15.
On June 18, 2003, Williams' attorney filed a motion for JNOV, or in the alternative, a new trial.
In that motion, Williams claimed that he could not be at trial because he did not have transportation from
his home in Franklinton, Louisiana and was unable to notify the court of the problem. This motion was
denied. Williams now appeals the court's decision to have him tried in absentia.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶16.
The issue of whether the trial court erred in trying a defendant in absentia is a question of law which
this Court reviews de novo. Jefferson v. State, 807 So. 2d 1222 (¶6) (Miss. 2002).
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
¶17.
Williams alleges that he was denied the right to be present at his trial. He claims that there was no
evidence to support the decision to allow his trial in absentia. Williams maintains that no testimony was
given that indicated that he attempted to purposefully avoid trial.
¶18.
Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-17-9 (Rev. 2000) states that:
In criminal cases the presence of the prisoner may be waived, and the trial progress, at the
discretion of the court, in his absence, if he be in custody and consenting thereto. If the
defendant, in cases less than felony, be on recognizance or bail or have been arrested and
escaped, or have been notified by the proper officer of the pendency of the indictment
against him, and resisted or fled, or refused to be taken, or be in any way in default for
nonappearance, the trial may progress at the discretion of the court, and judgment final and
sentence be awarded as though such defendant were personally present in court.
4
¶19.
However, in addition to the above statute, Jefferson v. State, 807 So. 2d 1222 (¶18) (Miss.
2002) carved out an exception where a defendant may be tried in absentia based on willful, voluntary, and
deliberate actions to avoid trial.
¶20.
In this matter, testimony was offered by the State which indicated that Williams was clearly aware
of his trial date. Williams failed to contact his attorney or the court regarding his whereabouts. Therefore,
we find no error in the trial court's decision to try Williams in absentia.
¶21. THE JUDGMENT OF THE PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION OF
COUNT I BURGLARY OF A BUILDING AND SENTENCE OF EIGHTY-FOUR
CONSECUTIVE MONTHS; AND COUNT II CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BURGLARY OF
A BUILDING AND SENTENCE OF SIXTY CONSECUTIVE MONTHS TO BE SERVED
CONCURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, PAY A $10,000 FINE AND $800 IN RESTITUTION IS AFFIRMED. COSTS
OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO PIKE COUNTY.
BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ.,
CONCUR. BARNES, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
5
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.
