Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-29-2018
Case Style:
Raquel Shadawn Taylor a/k/a Raquel Taylor v. State of Mississippi
Case Number: 2017-KA-01559-COA
Judge: Steve Ratcliff, III
Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Plaintiff's Attorney: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BILLY L. GORE
Defendant's Attorney: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
BY: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF
Description:
On December 26, 2015, while shopping at Northpark Mall in Ridgeland, Mississippi,
Tiphaney Willis and Taylor had a verbal exchange about a mutual male interest. Willis made
a purchase at the store where the confrontation occurred and proceeded to leave the mall.
In the parking lot, as Willis was approaching her car, Taylor came from behind and struck
Willis several times with a tire-iron. A bystander intervened and called 911. Taylor drove
away from the scene.
¶3. Willis was taken to the hospital. Ridgeland police officer Barry Hollingsworth
responded to the scene and found Willis with two contusions on her head and blood on her
face. Jason Rudd, a Ridgeland police officer, also responded to the scene and witnessed
Willis, on a stretcher, being put into the ambulance. A suspect was developed based on the
eyewitnesses’ accounts. The next day, Willis identified a picture of Taylor and the tire-iron.
Taylor was arrested.
¶4. After waiving her Miranda1 rights, Taylor made a statement. At trial, Taylor
conceded that she hit Willis with a tire-iron. Among those who testified were two shoppers
that witnessed the exchange of words inside the mall and the assault in the parking lot. A
unanimous jury found Taylor guilty of aggravated assault.
DISCUSSION
¶5. Pursuant to Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 2005), appellate counsel filed a
brief stating that he:
diligently searched the procedural and factual history of this criminal action and scoured the record searching for any arguable issues which could be presented to the Court on Raquel Shadawn Taylor’s behalf in good faith for
1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2
appellate review and upon conclusion, have found none.
In Lindsey, the Mississippi Supreme Court set out the procedure to be followed when a
defendant’s attorney does not find any arguable issues to support an appeal. Lindsey, 939 at
748 (¶18). Appellate counsel must file a brief showing that counsel has thoroughly reviewed
the record and has found nothing to support an appeal. Counsel must then send the appellant
a copy of the brief, informing the client that counsel found no arguable issue for an appeal,
and counsel must advise the client of her right to file a pro se brief. Id. If the defendant
raises any arguable issue in her pro se brief, or if the appellate court finds any arguable issues
upon its independent review of the record, the appellate court must, if circumstances warrant,
require counsel to file supplemental briefing on the issue. Id.
¶6. Taylor’s attorney asserts that he examined: (1) the reason for Taylor’s arrest and the
circumstances surrounding the arrest; (2) any possible violations of Taylor’s right to counsel;
(3) the entire trial transcript; (4) all rulings of the trial court; (5) possible procedural
misconduct; (6) all jury instructions; (7) all exhibits, whether admitted into evidence or not;
(8) possible misapplication of the law in sentencing; (9) the indictment and all the pleadings
in the record; (10) any possible ineffective-assistance-of-counsel issues; and (11) other
possible reviewable issues. Id. at 748 (¶18) (citations omitted); see also Turner v. State, 818
So. 2d 1186 (Miss. 2001).
¶7. Taylor’s attorney complied with Lindsey’s requirements. He examined the record and
found no arguable appellate issues. Taylor’s attorney sent a copy of the Lindsey brief to
3
Taylor, stating that, while he found no arguable issues, Taylor had the right to file a pro se
supplemental brief. Taylor was given forty days to file a brief. She did not. We have
independently reviewed the record and find no arguable issues that require supplemental
briefing.
Outcome: Therefore, we affirm Taylor’s conviction and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: