Olevia Davis v. State of Mississippi

Jackson, MS - Criminal Defense lawyer represented defendant with a possession of a firearm by a convicted felon charge.

While at the Elks Lodge in Biloxi, Mississippi, for a dance contest, Davis had an

altercation with another patron. Gerrell Elzy, the security guard at the Lodge, did not witness

the beginning of the altercation but did see Davis charge another man while brandishing a

broken bottle. After attempting to calm Davis, Elzy removed him from the premises.

Outside, Elzywitnessed Davis arguing again with the same man from inside the Lodge. Elzy

heard Davis say he would be back and then saw him walk across nearby railroad tracks. Elzy

testified that Davis returned approximately thirty minutes later holding a gun. While Elzy

was calling 911, he saw Davis fire the gun into the air. Davis left again, walking back across

the railroad tracks between two houses. Elzy, still on the phone with a 911 operator,

followed Davis.

¶3. Law enforcement officers arrived quickly, and Elzy identified Davis as the man who

had fired the gun into the air. Davis was arrested and searched but was not armed. After a

search, officers found the gun behind the house that Elzy saw Davis run behind.

¶4. Davis testified in his defense that he never had a gun and that Elzy confused him with

the man from the fight inside the Lodge.

DISCUSSION

¶5. Here, Davis's appellate counsel complied with the requirements set forth in Lindsey.

See Lindsey, 939 So. 2d at 748 (¶18). Davis's appellate counsel stated that they reviewed the

following: (a) the reason for the arrest and the circumstances surrounding Davis's arrest; (b)

any possible violations of Davis's right to counsel; (c) the entire trial transcript and contents

of the record; (d) all rulings of the trial court; (e) possible prosecutorial misconduct; (f) all

jury instructions; (g) all exhibits, whether admitted into evidence or not; (h) possible

2

misapplication of the law in sentencing; (i) the indictment and all of the pleadings in the

record; (j) any possible ineffective assistance of counsel; and (k) whether the verdict is

supported by the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

¶6. Our independent and thorough review of the record has not revealed any arguable

issues that would warrant reversal.

Accordingly, we affirm Davis’s conviction and sentence.