Archer v. State

24 Citing cases

  1. Archer v. Fisher

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:15CV101-SA-SAA (N.D. Miss. Jan. 8, 2016)

    See Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A. With the assistance of counsel, Archer appealed the judgments of conviction and sentences to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which affirmed the circuit court's judgment. See id., Ex. B; see also Archer v. State, 118 So. 3d 612 (Miss. App. 2013), reh'g denied, April 9, 2013, cert. denied, July 18, 2013 (Cause No. 2010-KA-01127-COA). Archer did not seek certiorari review with the United States Supreme Court. Thereafter, on December 15, 2014, Archer signed an application to proceed on a motion for post-conviction relief that was stamped "filed" with the Mississippi Supreme Court on December 18, 2014.

  2. Burford v. State

    NO. 2019-KA-00180-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2020)

    Upon review, we find that this issue is procedurally barred. Archer v. State, 118 So. 3d 612, 620 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Caston v. State, 823 So. 473, 503 (¶102) (Miss. 2002) ("An appellate court is under no obligation to review an assignment of error when an objection was not made or when an objection was untimely.")). But even if Burford had preserved this issue for appeal, it would not avail her, as there was testimony or other evidence corroborating the State's case.

  3. Alford v. State

    238 So. 3d 11 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Alford next contends that the circuit court was required to undertake an express, on-the-record weighing of the probative value and prejudicial effects of the evidence, which the circuit court did not do in this case. He cites Archer v. State , 118 So.3d 612, 625–26 (¶ 57) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012), for the proposition that the circuit court "should" make such findings. While we agree with Archer on that point, and we reaffirm its recommendation that trial courts make such findings explicitly and on the record, Archer went on to observe that:

  4. White v. State

    228 So. 3d 893 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 20 times
    Ruling that repeatedly calling the defendant a pedophile or molester was grounds for reversal

    "When the trial court admits other bad acts evidence under Rule 404(b), it should make an on-the-record Rule 403 finding that the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Archer v. State, 118 So.3d 612, 625 (¶ 57) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Tate v. State, 912 So.2d 919, 925 (¶ 16) (Miss. 2005) ).

  5. Wilson v. State

    149 So. 3d 544 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)

    ]” Id. at 476 (¶ 34) (citation omitted). Likewise, in Archer v. State, 118 So.3d 612, 625 (¶ 57) (Miss.Ct.App.2012), we noted that “our review depends on the evidence and not the judge, and while a judge's on-the-record analysis is recommended as it serves to fortify the judge's position for purposes of review, the lack of such analysis is harmless unless we deem the evidence to be patently prejudicial.” Id. (citing Jones, 920 So.2d at 476 (¶ 34)).

  6. Wilson v. State

    149 So. 3d 544 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)

    ]” Id. at 476 (¶ 34) (citation omitted). Likewise, in Archer v. State, 118 So.3d 612, 625 ( ¶ 57) (Miss.Ct.App.2012), we noted that “our review depends on the evidence and not the judge, and while a judge's on-the-record analysis is recommended as it serves to fortify the judge's position for purposes of review, the lack of such analysis is harmless unless we deem the evidence to be patently prejudicial.” Id. (citing Jones, 920 So.2d at 476 ( ¶ 34)).

  7. Conner v. State

    No. 2022-KA-01288-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2024)

    (emphasis added) (quoting Archer v. State, 118 So.3d 612, 621 (¶29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)).

  8. Patrick v. Patrick

    391 So. 3d 1220 (Miss. Ct. App. 2024)

    The rule "does not simply require a party to mention authority; the authority must be used to develop the argument in a meaningful way." Walker v. State, 197 So. 3d 914, 919 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (emphasis added) (quoting Archer v. State, 118 So. 3d 612, 621 (¶29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)). Arguments that do not comply with the rule are procedurally barred.

  9. McVay v. State

    385 So. 3d 1280 (Miss. Ct. App. 2024)

    The rule "does not simply require a party to mention authority; the authority must be used to develop the argument in a meaningful way." Walker, 197 So. 3d at 919 (¶25) (emphasis added) (quoting Archer v. State, 118 So. 3d 612, 621 (¶29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)). Mississippi courts have repeatedly held that "in the absence of meaningful argument and citation of authority, [we] generally will not consider the assignment of error."

  10. Patrick v. Patrick

    No. 2021-CA-00891-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2024)

    The rule "does not simply require a party to mention authority; the authority must be used to develop the argument in a meaningful way." Walker v. State, 197 So.3d 914, 919 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (emphasis added) (quoting Archer v. State, 118 So.3d 612, 621 (¶29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)). Arguments that do not comply with the rule are procedurally barred.