IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2025-KA-01355-SCT
TONY MARKEL HOWARD JR. a/k/a
TONY HOWARD
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/17/2025
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CALVIN D. TAYLOR
TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: CAROLYN ANN LEWIS
MICHAEL GLEN DYKES
ROBERT JAMES KNOCHEL
TAYLOR LAWRENCE LASHLEY
WILLIAM CARL BARRETT
CARLY JO WINSHIP
DUSTIN NORMAN THOMAS
ANN MORGAN SULLIVAN
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
BY: JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BARBARA WAKELAND BYRD
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: ANGEL MYERS McILRATH
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 10/15/2026
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
BEFORE RANDOLPH, C.J., SULLIVAN AND BRANNING, JJ.
BRANNING, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Tony Markel Howard Jr. appeals his convictions and sentences, claiming that the
circuit court erred by failing to grant his ore tenus motion for a continuance to obtain a
second mental-health evaluation prior to trial. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. On September 29, 2022, a Jackson County grand jury indicted Tony Markel Howard
Jr. as a violent habitual offender for aggravated assault on a law-enforcement officer,
shooting into a motor vehicle, and unlawful possession of firearm or weapon by a convicted
felon. The trial court entered an agreed scheduling order, which set Howard’s trial for May
8, 2023. On the day of trial, Howard’s counsel notified the trial court that he would be filing
a motion for a mental-health evaluation. As a result, Howard’s trial was continued, and the
circuit court set a status hearing for July 11, 2023.
¶3. On May 15, 2023, Howard’s counsel filed a written motion for a mental-health
evaluation, which the circuit court granted on July 13, 2023. Between July 2023 and May
2024, the circuit court granted multiple continuances, most of which were at Howard’s
request or agreed upon by Howard and the State.
¶4. Dr. John Montgomery evaluated Howard on April 7 and April 22, 2024, and submitted
his report and findings to the parties and the circuit court around April 29, 2024. On May
3, 2025, the circuit court held a competency hearing in which Dr. Montgomery’s report was
admitted into evidence without objection. In his report, Dr. Montgomery found that Howard
had “the sufficient, present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of
rational understanding in the preparation of his defense and [had] a sufficient factual and
rational understanding of the nature and object of the legal proceedings against him.” His
report further indicated that Howard knew “the nature and quality of his actions and that his
alleged acts were wrong” at the time of the crimes. On May 6, 2023, the circuit court issued
2
an order finding Howard competent to stand trial. Howard did not move for a new hearing
on the issue of competency.
¶5. On September 9, 2024, the trial court entered an order setting Howard’s trial for
February 11, 2025. On December 11, 2024, Howard filed a motion for a second independent
mental-health evaluation by Dr. Gregory Fox at the expense of Jackson County. Howard’s
motion did not identify a change in Howard’s condition or a deficiency in Dr. Montgomery’s
assessment. The State objected to Howard’s motion, and the circuit court conducted a
hearing on the matter on February 4, 2025.
¶6. As a result of the February 4, 2025, hearing, the trial court denied Howard’s motion
for a second mental-health evaluation “[t]o the extent that [Howard’s] Motion requests the
Court to authorize payment for a second mental evaluation by Dr. Gregory Fox by the Court
and/or Jackson County, Mississippi.” The circuit court specified, however, that Howard was
not precluded “from seeking a second opinion mental evaluation from Dr. Fox or another
doctor of his choosing at his own expense, for the evaluation and any other expenses[.]” And
at that point, the trial court denied Howard’s ore tenus motion to continue the trial set for
February 11, 2025.
¶7. On February 10, 2025, Howard filed a motion for a continuance, advising the trial
court that Dr. Fox’s earliest available appointment for a second mental-health evaluation
would be on March 12, 2025. As a result, the circuit court continued Howard’s trial until July
15, 2025, and the court entered an order of transport for Howard’s evaluation with Dr. Fox.
3
Then, upon agreement of the parties, Howard’s trial was later continued until October 14,
2025. Howard did not attempt to enter Dr. Fox’s report into evidence at trial.
¶8. At trial, the jury found him guilty on all three counts—aggravated assault on a lawenforcement officer, shooting into a motor vehicle, and unlawful possession of a firearm or
weapon by a convicted felon—and he was sentenced as a habitual offender to serve three
concurrent life sentences.
¶9. On appeal, Howard expressly challenges the trial court’s denial of his February 4,
2025, ore tenus motion for continuance and argues that the trial court erroneously denied
him the opportunity to obtain a second mental-health evaluation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶10. This Court reviews a trial court’s decision to deny a defendant’s motion for a
continuance using an abuse-of-discretion standard. Miles v. State, 249 So. 3d 362, 367
(Miss. 2018) (citing Mouton v. State, 227 So. 3d 1079, 1083 (Miss. 2017)).
DISCUSSION
¶11. Mississippi law recognizes a “presumption of mental competency” for all criminal
defendants. Robinson v. State, 301 So. 3d 577, 580 (Miss. 2020) (internal quotation mark
omitted) (quoting MRCrP 12.1(a)). This Court has “consistently . . . placed the burden on the
defendant to show his incompetence.” Hutto v. State, 227 So. 3d 963, 973 (Miss. 2017). The
Court has further acknowledged that:
Trial courts are afforded broad discretion in determining whether to order a
mental evaluation and competency hearing. Harden v. State, 59 So. 3d 594,
603 (Miss. 2011). In determining whether an abuse of discretion occurred, this
Court considers whether “the trial judge received information which,
4
objectively considered, should reasonably have raised a doubt about the
defendant’s competence and alerted the judge to the possibility that the
defendant could neither understand the proceedings, appreciate their
significance, nor rationally aid his attorney in his defense.” Goff v. State, 14
So. 3d 625, 644 (Miss. 2009).
King v. State, 269 So. 3d 98, 100 (Miss. 2018).
¶12. This Court has also held that a defendant has no guaranteed right to a favorable
mental-health evaluation; instead, the law only requires that a defendant receive an
appropriate examination by a competent psychiatrist. Garcia v. State, 369 So. 3d 511, 524
(Miss. 2023); see also Hill v. State, 432 So. 2d 427, 437 (Miss. 1983) (finding that the circuit
court had no obligation to provide the defendant with another psychiatric evaluation based
on defendant’s dissatisfaction with his first evaluation). As such, Howard “had no right to
an expert who would, at his attorney’s insistence, conjure up a mental-health disorder, or
otherwise simply fashion an opinion to lend him a helping hand in defense or mitigation.”
Id.
¶13. In addition, we recognize that “[t]rial judges have wide latitude in deciding whether
to grant continuances, and that decision is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.”
Miles, 249 So. 3d at 368 (citing Lambert v. State, 654 So. 2d 17, 22 (Miss. 1995)). But any
such denial will be subject to reversal if manifest injustice results. Id.
¶14. Howard argues that the trial court erroneously denied his ore tenus motion for
continuance, which resulted in his trial proceeding as scheduled. Specifically, he argues that
the trial court “required [him] to proceed to trial without any realistic opportunity to obtain
the independent evaluation [from Dr. Fox that] the court itself acknowledged he could
5
pursue.” He contends that the trial court, therefore, “substantially prejudiced Howard’s ability
to investigate, prepare, and present mental-health evidence central to the constitutional
reliability of the proceedings.” We disagree.
¶15. First and most importantly, Howard’s account of the procedural facts of this case
conflicts with the timeline established in the record. Howard correctly states that he filed his
motion for a second mental evaluation on December 11, 2024. He then states the following,
however:
At the pretrial hearing, defense counsel explained that Dr. Montgomery’s [first
mental-health] evaluation process itself had consumed approximately a year
and argued it was fundamentally unfair to require defense to secure an
independent psychiatric evaluation with in only seven days before trial. . . . The
trial court ultimately denied the continuance and proceeded to trial.
The record does not support this version of events.
¶16. The record clearly establishes that, on July 13, 2023, the trial court granted Howard’s
first motion for a mental-health evaluation, which was conducted by Dr. Montgomery. After
the first mental-health evaluation, the trial court conducted a competency hearing and found
Howard competent to stand trial. Howard did not seek reconsideration of the trial court’s
competency determination.
¶17. On December 11, 2024, Howard filed a motion for a second mental-health evaluation
in which he requested that the circuit court require Jackson County to pay for the second
evaluation. At the February 4, 2025, hearing on this motion, the circuit court did not deny
Howard the opportunity to obtain a second mental-health evaluation but rather denied
Howard’s request to have the county pay for his second evaluation.
6
¶18. In its order, the trial court stated that Howard was not precluded “from seeking a
second opinion mental-evaluation from Dr. Fox or another doctor of his choosing at his own
expense, for the evaluation and any other expenses[.]” At this time, the circuit court denied
Howard’s ore tenus motion for a continuance of his trial, which was scheduled for February
11, 2025.
¶19. Once Howard filed his written motion for continuance, explaining that Dr. Fox’s
earliest appointment for his second mental-health evaluation would be on March 12, 2025,
the trial court granted the continuance. Howard’s trial ultimately took place eight months
later, on October 14, 2025.
¶20. We find that the trial court did not impede Howard’s ability to obtain a second
evaluation, nor did it “require [him] to secure an independent evaluation with in only seven
days before trial.” While the trial court denied Howard’s request that the county pay for the
second mental-health evaluation, the trial court allowed Howard the opportunity to proceed
with the second mental-health evaluation at his own expense.
¶21. And while the trial court initially denied Howard’s ore tenus motion for a
continuance, the trial court later granted a continuance. In fact, Howard was afforded an
additional eight months before his trial. We see no error here.
¶22. Finally, the State argues that Howard is procedurally barred from challenging the
circuit court’s denial of his motion for continuance on appeal because he failed to raise the
issue in a post-trial motion for a new trial. In Crawford v. State, this Court explained that
The denial of a continuance is not an issue reviewable on appeal where
the denial of the continuance is not assigned as a ground for a new trial in the
7
defendant’s post-trial motion for a new trial. On motion for a new trial, certain
errors must be brought to the attention of the trial judge so that he may have
an opportunity to pass upon their validity before this court is called upon to
review them. For example, the denial of a continuance in the trial court is not
reviewable unless the party whose motion for continuance was denied makes
a motion for a new trial on this ground.
Crawford v. State, 787 So. 2d 1236, 1242–43 (Miss. 2001) (citation modified).
¶23. We recognize that the record does not contain a motion for a new trial. Regardless
of the procedural bar, however, “the decision to grant or deny a motion for continuance is
within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless the decision
results in manifest injustice.” Ross v. State, 954 So. 2d 968, 1007 (Miss. 2007) (citing Cox
v. State, 849 So. 2d 1257, 1267 (Miss. 2003)).
¶24. We find that no injustice resulted from the trial court’s denial of Howard’s ore tenus
motion for continuance, as a continuance was later granted. Howard obtained a second
mental-health evaluation, and his trial proceeded eight months later.
CONCLUSION
¶25. Finding no error, we affirm Howard’s convictions and sentences.
¶26. AFFIRMED.
RANDOLPH, C.J., KING AND COLEMAN, P.JJ., ISHEE, GRIFFIS,
SULLIVAN, WILSON AND TOLLISON, JJ., CONCUR.
8