My question involves criminal law for the state of: Mississippi. A friend was convicted of rape in 94. The indictment states that the female was 18, yet that statute is 97-3-65 paragraph 1, which is for rape of a person under the age of 14. What, if anything, can be done about this?
The time to bring that up was during trial. Was the girl really over 14?
Are you sure he was tried under that statute?
It was brought up during the trial. The indictment clearly states she was 18, yet that was the statute listed on the indictment. He served 10 years and 8 months of a mandatory 45 year trial before he got out.
What is your goal here exactly?
(Haven't you asked this on other legal boards? It seems oddly familiar)
If you do not answer the questions, we can't even begin to help.
HOW OLD WAS THE GIRL?
What was exactly the statute he went to trial on?
If there was just a clerical error on the indictment, and she was really not 18, then there doesn't seem to be any recourse.
If she was in fact of legal age and the act was consensual, you have a good case to see if you can get a pardon.
However, any judicial appeal opportunity seems to have expired long ago. There are no new facts here.
It is implied in the information provided that the issue was raised at trial, it was confirmed that the age issue was a clerical error and that the defendant had adequate notice of the charges against him, and that the child was in fact under age 14. It also follows that he either did not raise the issue on appeal, chose to waive the issue on appeal or did not appeal.
He met the girl in a bar. When he came out of her apartment her fiance saw him leave and when he confronted him she said she was raped. He didn't have a very lawyer and his appeals were denied in chambers without him even being able to speak to the judge. The reason he is trying to get this off of his record now is because he can't even get a job because of this. We were just wondering if anything could be done
KT I will tell you one more time. Answer the questions put to you or go away.
Appeals are not heard "in chambers." There appear to be no new facts in this case. Appeals need to be made in a timely fashion. It's too late now.
It *MIGHT* be different if there was new information not known at the time (either concealment of evidence by the police or prosecution, or DNA evidence not previously usable).
There's no way that you're going to argue ineffective counsel or procedural errors at this point. THere's no way felonies are just going to disappear. If there is some compelling matter to show that he was wrongfully convicted, and wildly hunting for loopholes in paper work isn't going to do it, he might be able to get a pardon.
Otherwise, he's going to have to deal with implications of being guilty of a serious crime. We don't take things off people's records just because they find it a burden to them later in life.