Alexander Easterling a/k/a Alexander Easterling, Sr. v. State of Mississippi

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2023-KA-00610-COA

ALEXANDER EASTERLING A/K/A APPELLANT
ALEXANDER EASTERLING, SR.

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/11/2023
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. STANLEY ALEX SOREY
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: SIMPSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
BY: JUSTIN T. COOK
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: CASEY BONNER FARMER
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS HENNIS
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 08/27/2024
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND McDONALD, JJ.

WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Alexander Easterling was convicted by a Simpson County Circuit Court jury of

possession of a controlled substance as a second or subsequent offender and a habitual

offender. Easterling was sentenced by the Simpson County Circuit Court to serve six years

in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. On appeal, Easterling’s

appointed counsel filed a brief consistent with Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 2005),

representing to this Court that the record presented no arguable issues for appeal. This Court

granted Easterling forty additional days to file a pro se supplemental brief if he so desired.
No supplemental brief was filed. After reviewing the briefs and record, we affirm

Easterling’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On October 7, 2020, in Magee, Mississippi, Lieutenant Chris Jones observed

Easterling traveling down a highway and pulled Easterling over after observing him run a

stop sign. Lieutenant Jones also noticed that Easterling’s tag light was out. When Lieutenant

Jones got behind Easterling’s vehicle and initiated his blue lights, Easterling immediately

pulled over. Upon approaching the vehicle, Lieutenant Jones observed Easterling driving the

vehicle and one other person in the passenger seat.1

¶3. Lieutenant Jones asked Easterling for his driver’s license and proof of insurance.

Easterling began “plundering for his insurance card through the glove box, through the center

console, just being real fidgety in the car.” Easterling did not have a driver’s license to

present to Lieutenant Jones, so instead Easterling gave Lieutenant Jones a Mississippi

identification card. After not being able to produce a driver’s license, Lieutenant Jones asked

Easterling to step out of the vehicle. Before exiting the vehicle, Lieutenant Jones noticed that

Easterling held a plastic sandwich bag in his hand, and the end had been torn off of it. This

raised suspicion in Lieutenant Jones because it is something he commonly sees “with

someone packaging narcotics.”

¶4. Once out of the vehicle, Lieutenant Jones directed Easterling to the rear of the vehicle,

and they discussed Easterling’s driver’s license. Easterling informed Lieutenant Jones that

1
The passenger was identified as Gary Clint Roberts. Roberts was arrested for
outstanding fines. He was not arrested for anything in connection with the traffic stop.

2
his driver’s license was suspended for nonpayment of child support. During this encounter,

Easterling only “made eye contact with [Lieutenant Jones] maybe twice in the entire time

[Lieutenant Jones] was talking to him,” and Easterling “started sweating.” Lieutenant Jones

asked Easterling if there was anything illegal in the vehicle that he should be concerned

about, and Easterling “stared off in space.” Lieutenant Jones told Easterling to “just be

honest” with him, and if something in the car was a “ticketable” offense, he would just give

Easterling a ticket. Easterling then responded that he had some Klonopin pills. When asked

if that was all he had in the car, Easterling said he had some crystal methamphetamine and

a “meth pipe” in the car as well.

¶5. Lieutenant Jones informed Easterling that based on his admission and the illegal

substance in the vehicle, he was going to be detained, and Lieutenant Jones was going to

search the vehicle. Prior to searching the vehicle, Easterling told Lieutenant Jones that the

drugs in the car did not belong to his passenger and that his passenger did not have any

illegal drugs in the car. Easterling told Lieutenant Jones that the methamphetamine was

under the sun visor on the driver’s side of the vehicle, and when Lieutenant Jones began to

search the vehicle and pulled the sun visor down, the methamphetamine fell out. Lieutenant

Jones discovered “two baggies contained into one bag,” so he “opened the main bag and

separated the pills and the meth and put them in two separate evidence bags.” Lieutenant

Jones continued searching the vehicle and located the meth pipe “in between the seats and

console area.” Lieutenant Jones then told Easterling the methamphetamine he found was

3
enough to constitute a felony and read Easterling his Miranda2 rights.

¶6. At trial, Lieutenant Jones testified about this encounter with Easterling, and the body-

camera footage that captured the entirety of the traffic stop was shown to the court and the

jury. Joshua Bryant also testified for the State at trial. Bryant was a narcotics investigator

for the Magee Police Department at the time of Easterling’s arrest. Bryant testified that he

was the person responsible for transporting the items found in Easterling’s vehicle to the

Mississippi Forensics Laboratory in Pearl, Mississippi. He testified that the evidence

produced at trial was in the same condition as it had been when he transported it, and it did

not appear to be tampered with in any way.

¶7. The last witness the State called to the stand was Raven Williams. At the time of

Easterling’s arrest, Williams was employed as a forensic scientist at the Mississippi Forensics

Laboratory. Once the court admitted Williams as an expert witness, she testified that the

substance brought to the crime lab went through a series of tests, and then she was able to

successfully conclude that the substance was 0.94 grams of methamphetamine.

¶8. At this time in the trial, the State rested. Easterling then made a motion for a directed

verdict, asserting that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Easterling was

the one who actually possessed the methamphetamine. The court denied this motion.

Easterling did not present any witness testimony at trial.

¶9. The jury ultimately found Easterling guilty of possession of a controlled substance.

The court sentenced Easterling to serve six years in the custody of the Mississippi

2
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966).

4
Department of Corrections as a second or subsequent offender and as a habitual offender.

In a post-trial motion hearing, Easterling filed a motion for a new trial, and the court denied

the motion.

¶10. Easterling’s appellate counsel did not find any arguable issues nor assert any issues

in the brief submitted on appeal. Easterling did not file a pro se brief asserting any issues on

appeal.

DISCUSSION

¶11. Lindsey establishes the “procedure to govern cases where appellate counsel represents

an indigent criminal defendant and does not believe his or her client’s case presents any

arguable issues on appeal[.]” Lindsey, 939 So. 2d at 748 (¶18). Easterling’s appointed

appellate counsel filed a brief consistent with the procedure in Lindsey and stated 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

Easterling’s behalf in good faith for appellate review, and upon conclusion, has found none.”

Easterling’s appointed appellate counsel stated in his brief the matters he considered and

reviewed, which included:

(a) the reason for the arrest and the circumstances surrounding Easterling’s
arrest; (b) any possible violations of Easterling’s right to counsel; (c) the entire
trial transcript and content of the record; (d) all rulings of the trial court;
specifically, the rulings on various defense counsel objections, including, but
not limited to, objections made by defense counsel that were properly
sustained; (e) possible prosecutorial misconduct; (f) all jury instructions,
specifically, but not limited to, those requested by defense counsel and denied
by the trial court; (g) all exhibits, whether admitted into evidence or not; (h)
possible misapplication of the law in sentencing, including but not limited to
the constitutionality of Easterling’s sentence; (i) the indictment and all of the

5
pleadings in the record; (j) any possible ineffective assistance of counsel
issues; (k) any potential discovery violations; (l) any potential violation of
Easterling speedy trial right; (m) any potential Fourth Amendment violations
surrounding Easterling’s traffic stop; (n) the application of Easterling’s
sentence as a habitual and a subsequent drug offender; and (o) any violation
of Easterling’s right to a speedy trial in light of the nearly three-year delay in
bringing him to trial.

Appellate counsel further requested forty days of additional time for Easterling to file a pro

se brief if he so desired. The request was granted, but Easterling did not file a pro se brief.

¶12. Pursuant to Lindsey, we have “reviewed the briefs and conducted an independent and

thorough review of the record, and we conclude that there are no issues that warrant

reversal.” Green v. State, 242 So. 3d 923, 925 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Taylor

v. State, 162 So. 3d 780, 787 (¶18) (Miss. 2015)). We find no discernable error; further, the

State provided sufficient evidence to establish Easterling’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

CONCLUSION

¶13. Counsel found no arguable issue to bring before us on appeal, and after our thorough,

independent review of the record, we find no arguable issues that warrant reversal.

Accordingly, we affirm Easterling’s conviction and sentence.

¶14. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., McDONALD, LAWRENCE,
McCARTY, SMITH AND EMFINGER, JJ., CONCUR.

6