Palmer Motion
Palmer Motion
,· r t ,
NO. j{)/8-Af . J) J f
oi\GU\~i_______ QUINTON TELLIS
PETITIONER/DEFENDANT
vs
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
AUS - 2 2018 \ } ~
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
In re Petition to Appeal Interlocutory Order of the Panola County Circuit Court, Honorable
Gerald Chatham, State of Mississippi v. Quinton Tellis, Cause No. CR2016-056 CP2
Jackson,MS 39201-3202
vs CAUSE NO.
----------
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RESPONDENT /PLAINTIFF
In re Petition to Appeal Interlocutory Order of the Panola County Circuit Court, Honorable
Gerald Chatham, State of Mississippi v. Quinton Tellis, Cause No. CR2016-056 CP2
The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons and entities
have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the
Justices of the Mississippi Supreme Court and/or the Judges of the Mississippi Court of Appeals
may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal:
1
STATEMENT REGARDING RELATED CASES PENDING
THAT PRESENT SAME ISSUES AS INSTANT INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
Petitioner/Defendant Quinton Tellis has no knowledge of any other cases or petitions for
Interlocutory Appeal pending before the Mississippi Supreme Court or the Mississippi Court of
Appeals which are related to the matters presented in the instant Petition for Interlocutory
Appeal.
On July 2, 2018, the Petitioner/Defendant filed a Motion for Recusal of Panola County
Sanctions.
On July 12, 2018, Judgment was entered denying the Motion in its entirety.
State of Mississippi vs. Quinton Tellis, Cause Number CR 2016-056CP2 is scheduled for
The Order from the Panola County Circuit Court was signed by Circuit Judge Gerald
Chatham and filed on July 12, 2018 nunc pro tune for the hearing held on July 9, 2018. In
compliance with Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 5, the Instant Petition for Interlocutory
Appeal was filed within the twenty-one day limit, namely on August 2, 2018.
2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
"Defendant Tellis), and files this his Petition for Interlocutory Appeal pursuant to Rule 5(a) of
the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure and would respectfully show unto the Court as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
The instant Petition for Interlocutory Appeal is filed from Judgement entered on July 12,
2018 in the Panola County Circuit Court, 2nct Judicial District, wherein Defendant Tellis' Motion
for Recusal of Panola County District Attorney due to Prosecutorial Misconduct was denied. The
concurrent Motions for a Continuance and Motion for Sanctions were denied as well.
It is the position of Defendant Tellis that the trial court did not make any clear
determination as to whether Panola County District Attorney John Champion had committed any
was so egregious as to warrant the removal of himself and his office from prosecuting this
matter. Defendant Tellis's Motion for Recusal of the Panola County District Attorney's Office
was filed to ensure that the Defendant Tellis receives a fair and impartial trial without
In accordance with Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure 5(a)(3), the granting of the
Petition for Interlocutory Appeal will resolve issues of vital importance to the administration of
3
justice. A substantial basis exists for the difference of opinion on a questions of law as to which
appellate resolution will resolve issues of general (and vital) importance to the administration of
justice.
1. Defendant Tellis, was charged with capital murder in cause number CR2016-056 CP2
in the Panola County Circuit Court, Second Judicial District. Defendant Tellis was
2. Defendant Tellis retained Attorneys Darla Mannery Palmer and Alton Peterson to
represent him in his capital murder case. Panola County District Attorney John
Assistant District Attorney Jay Hale prosecuted the case. Panola County Circuit
Judge Gerald Chatham presided over the trial which began on October 9, 2017 and
lasted for 9 days. After the Judy could not agree upon a verdict, a mistrial was
ultimately declared.
3. A new scheduling order was entered and the re-trial in this matter was scheduled for
4. On April 5, 2018, District Attorney Champion went to the Desoto County Adult
the Desoto County Circuit Court, Cause Number CR-2017-0641 CW2. Like
Defendant Tellis, Defendant Caudle retained Attorney Palmer to represent him in this
4
5. At the time of his visit with Defedant Caudle, District Attorney Champion was aware
that Attorney Palmer was attorney of record for Defendant Caudle. District Attorney
Champion did not advise Attorney Palmer of his visit. Further, he did not seek
Caudle's father, Alphonzia Matthews, that District Attorney Champion had visited
7. On April 10, 2018 and April 17, 2018, Attorney Palmer thereafter visited with
Defendant Caudle. Attorney Peterson was present at the second visit on April 17,
2018.
8. After lengthy discussions with Defendant Caudle, Attorney Palmer was of the
both by visiting with Defendant Caudle because he was represented by counsel and
through statements made to Defendant Caudle during his visit with him. The essence
of District Attorney's visit was to elicit information from Defendant Caudle against
9. During the next approximately two months, Attorneys Palmer and Peterson
Attorney Palmer had to consider the effect ofrevealing District Attorney's actions on
Panola County District Attorney's Office from both Defendant Tellis's case and
5
Defendant Caudle's case. The motions had an affidavit attached which had been
11. Defendant Caudle's affidavit revealed the efforts by District Attorney Champion to
threaten him, intimidate him, coerce him, and bribe him to fabricate evidence against
Defendant Tellis to assist District Attorney Champion in the re-trial with Defendant
Tellis. (The connection between Defendant Tellis and Defendant Caudle was that
both had been housed in the Desoto County Detention Center at the same time at
some point and had become friends.) Further, both Defendants had Attorney Palmer
12. On July 9, 2017, on a pre-scheduled status conference date, a full hearing on the
Motions regarding Defendant Tellis were heard before Judge Chatham with a court
reporter present. Defendant Tellis presented the following witnesses and exhibits: (1)
stipulated document which evinced that Defendant Caudle and been transported by a
jailer from his jail pod to the office of the Jail Administrator to visit with District
Attorney John Champion, (2) Defendant Caudle, (3) Alphonzia Matthews and (4)
copies of email/test messages sent by Defendant Caudle from the computer kiosk
provided to inmates within hours of his visit with District Attorney Champion.
13. Assistant District Attorney Hale conducted examinations on behalf of the State of
Mississippi and presented two witnesses, (1) a local lawyer who represented a
another defendant who had talked to Defendant Caudle and (2) District Attorney
Champion.
6
14. Judge Chatham denied Defendant Tellis's motions and entered an order on July 12,
2018.
15. The order ruled that after hearing all testimony and argument of counsel, no evidence
Tellis.
16. The interlocutory appeal arises from Judge Chatham's aforementioned order.
under Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d).
Judge Chatham made no definitive ruling as to whether District Attorney had committed
an act of misconduct or engaged in any conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of
justice. (Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 (d)). It is Defendant Tellis's contention
7
that an analysis of District Attorney Champion's behavior should have been conducted by the
trial court and thereafter applied against the standard on ensuring a fair and impartial trial for
Defendant Tellis.
LAW
There are a phletora of cases that speak to the fact that when there is an allegation of
prosecutorial misconduct, the Court must look to whether the Defendant has suffered any
prejudice. However, extensive research in this regard, reveals that all of these cases have made it
to jury deliberation and the efforts by a defendant to demonstrate whether prejudice resulted are
measured against a guilty plea typically or some other disadvantageous outcome during trial. For
Defendant Tellis contends that he should not have been required by the Court to show
prejudice to him, individually, at this stage of trial. The Court should have been weighing
whether prosecutorial misconduct on the part of District Attorney Champion had somehow
infringed on the standard of ensuring a fair and impartial trial for Defendant Tellis and the
administration of justice.
8
A judge has broad discretionary power to control the progress of a trial, including
decisions made during motion hearings and other administrative matters that lead up to the
actual picking of the jury and the trial proceeds. However, this judicial discretionary power has
limitations. The Mississippi Supreme Court has defined judicial discretion as "a sound judgment
which is not exercised arbitrarily, but with regard to what is right and equitable in circumstances
and law, and which is directed by the reasoning conscience of the trial judge to just result. White
v. State, 742 So.2d 1126, 1136 (Miss.1999). There is an abuse of discretion when the judge rules
"clearly against logic and [the] effect of such facts as are presented ... or against the reasonable
and probable deductions to be drawn from the facts. White v. State, 742 So.2d at 1136.
"Despite out reluctance to reverse, we are duty bound and sworn by oath to uphold the
laws of the State of Mississippi. We are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that the
criminal justice system of this state works to guarantee that every defendant brought before its
tribunals receives a fair and impartial trial. To that end, we must instill in all officers of the trial
courts a sense of their own responsibility in preserving our system of justice. To avoid abuse of
the system, we admonish all prosecutors, trial judges, and other affected officials to follow the
rules and provide a fundamentally fair hearing at the sentencing (death penalty) phase, or be
prepared to 'do it again'. Stringer v State, 500 So.2d 928, 930 (Miss.1986), Blakeney v State,
No.2015-DP-00058-SCT
Defendant Tellis contends that the trial court failed to view that the issue at hand before
the Court was to ensure that Defendant Tellis receives a fair and impartial re-trial. To disregard
9
unequivocal facts/evidence which support a finding of absolute prosecutorial misconduct, said
trial court ruling was an abuse of his discretion. Further, it would be virtually impossible for
Defendant Tellis to receive a fair and impartial trial if the district attorney's office which has
committed prosecutorial misconduct is allowed to continue to prosecute the very same case.
CONCLUSION
Defendant Tellis respectfully requests that this Honorable Court accept this Petition, and
issue a briefing schedule and require that the record from the lower court including but not
limited to transcripts from the trial court hearing and all exhibits be submitted as appropriate.
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Darla Mannery Palmer, Attorney for the Petitioner/Defendant, do hereby certify that I
have this day served a true and correct copy of this Petition for Interlocutory Appeal via U.S.
11
1':' .J
. i .. :~
. ' ::1 -~
' ·'. •. -i
- ,
j - ~ J
:1
..j :,
:j
IN Tl-IE CIRCUIT COURT OF PANOLA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
:1
..,,! ; ; ' :. ·: SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT .
, ., ,~
!
:: • • ' ~·'
·, r '
',;
.: · STATE OF. MISSISSIPPI:
QUINTON TELLIS·. : . .i
·. .:i ' .' "', . ,j .. ' . ·. . ' : ; '.: ,•
ORDER DE1'IY1NG pEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF DISTRICT .
:.·ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DUE TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT/MOTION FOR
• . · :! . . - ··: CONTINUANCE AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS .
. j. ,.
! .· ,. : ;. . . . ' '
'J This: day th~s· matte/came before this Hon~rable Court. After hearing the testimon; of
·. i
<i
; l . ;' .· " ' ·: ":.. ' .. : :. . :
all th~ witnesses and arg~mbnt of counsel. the Court finds that no evidence has been presented of
1
' : ·l . . . :-. ,,; • . ' . '· . .
.• . ' J.. .' . . .. ; . . ' . .;
misconduct by the District Attorney which has prejudiced the above named defendant in his'case. ·
. ' . • '1 . • ; ...· ·...· :; i ·; ; . . . . ' . . . . ; . .
Therefore it is th~,r~lin~ of this Court that the Motion for Recusal of District Attorney's Office
l
1·•\ '. ,.
:--~i
'.1!·j,
.! ·,
· FILE:D
..
·. I : -~ ·, ' ' , ..
• I:' JUL 12 2018
•. ~:
; ···.!
'''j MELISSA MEEK'~ PHELPS ..
.: :.~
.1
j CIRCUIT CLERK ,
',l
. -~ . ,i
'. 1