author: CARLSON, Presiding Justice,

text:
    Kevin BUCKEL v. Mike CHANEY, Commissioner of Insurance.
    No. 2009-CA-01602-SCT.
    Supreme Court of Mississippi.
    Nov. 4, 2010.

      Edward Gibson, attorney for appellant.
    Office of the Attorney General by Lowry Christopher Lomax, Lisa Louise Colonias, attorneys for appellee.
    Before CARLSON, P.J., RANDOLPH and KITCHENS, JJ.
   CARLSON, Presiding Justice,

for the Court:

¶ 1. Kevin Buckel has appealed to this Court from an order granting summary judgment entered by the Chancery Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County. Buckel asserts that the chancery court inappropriately assigned evidentiary value to an affidavit in support of the motion for summary judgment filed by the Mississippi Commissioner of Insurance and that the chancery court erred in its finding that Buckel’s rebuttal evidence was insufficient to avoid a grant of summary judgment. Buckel further contends that the chancery court erred by holding that his public-records request was improper under the Mississippi Public Records Act and that Mississippi Code Section. 83-5-209(7) (Rev.1999) exempted from disclosure the records Buckel had requested. Finding Buckel’s arguments to be unpersuasive and the chancellor’s findings to be firmly rooted in the law, we affirm the chancery court judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT

¶ 2. On January 4, 2009, Buckel submitted a public-records request under the Mississippi Public Records Act to the Mississippi Insurance Department (“MID”):

This is to request any data in the possession of MID concerning homeowner insurance claims as a result of Hurricane Katrina, excluding Wind Pool and Flood Claims. Specifically, I would like to know the (1) total number of homeowner claims filed after the storm; (2) the total “insured amount claimed” filed by homeowners after the storm; (3) the total amount paid out on those homeowner claims after the storm; (4) the total amount “not paid” on the homeowner claims after the storm. If this information is not available, I respectfully request your office compile this information for public consumption from the insurance companies that received homeowner claims regulated by MID as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

Having not received a response to this request by January 16, 2009, Buckel again wrote to MID, expressing his desire to appeal MID’s alleged failure to respond to his earlier request. However, MID did timely respond by letter on January 26, 2009, under the provisions of Mississippi Code Section 25-61-5 (Rev.2010), and informed Buckel that MID had searched for the requested documents but did not possess them. MID expressed further to Buckel that the Mississippi Public Records Act required only the production of existing records in its possession and did not require a department to compile information. MID added that these documents, in any event, were not viewable under an exemption to the Public Records Act.

¶ 3. Buckel subsequently filed pro se for judicial review in the Harrison County Chancery Court, and the parties agreed to transfer venue to the Hinds County Chancery Court. In his complaint, Buckel sought information not specifically set forth in his original records request. For instance, Buckel requested information relating to MID’s release on October 29, 2008, of its findings on the State Farm Conduct Exam. Buckel specifically requested “a copy of [the] claim information used by the examination team” in compiling the State Farm Conduct Exam. He also requested “any documentation used by former Commissioner [George] Dale that resulted in the information published” in press releases occurring on January 30, 2006, and November 21, 2005, as well as in a news story in which Commissioner Dale was quoted on June 22, 2006. The press releases and news story contained detailed information regarding the number of claims filed in specific counties and total amounts in claims paid.

¶ 4. After the Commissioner had answered and pleaded his affirmative defenses, the Commissioner filed a motion for summary judgment. Buckel timely responded, and the chancellor conducted a summary judgment hearing. The Commissioner put forth two arguments in support of his motion: (1) that MID did not possess the public records initially requested; and (2) that the public-records request failed to include documents underlying the State Farm Market Conduct Report and that these documents were exempt under Mississippi Code Section 83-5-209(7) (Rev. 1999).

¶ 5. In support of his first argument, the Commissioner provided an affidavit of MID employee Donna Cromeans in which she swore based on personal knowledge that she “undertook and supervised a diligent search of the files and records held by MID” and that the records requested by Buckel “are not in the possession, custody or control of’ MID. Buckel, however, has argued for the first time on appeal that the chancellor erred by finding evi-dentiary value in this affidavit, because Cromeans was an interested witness.

¶ 6. In response to the Commissioner’s denial of having possession of the records requested, Buckel presented two arguments at the summary judgment hearing: (1) that the two press releases and single news story, relating to homeowners’ claims filed and paid after Katrina, contained “exact detailed information,” evidencing that MID was “compiling” this information, and, therefore, was in possession of the information requested and (2) that the State Farm Market Conduct Report indicated that MID was in possession of Buck-el’s requested documents because the Report stated that Commissioner Dale had subpoenaed 43,000 files from State Farm. Buckel also contended that his initial records request did include the information underlying the Market Conduct Report, although not specifically identified, and that the Mississippi Public Records Act did not exempt this underlying statistical information.

¶ 7. On September 2, 2009, the chancellor entered an order granting summary judgment, holding that (1) no genuine issue of material fact existed to support Buckel’s claims; (2) neither the Commissioner nor MID possessed the records requested by Buckel; and (3) the documents demanded by Buckel in his complaint were not properly requested and were nonetheless protected by Mississippi Code Section 83-5-209(7) (Rev.1999), as further interpreted in pari materia by Mississippi Department of Insurance (MDOI) Regulation 83 — 1.6(b)(2).

¶ 8. On appeal, Buckel seeks to reverse this judgment and have his case remanded to the chancery court for further proceedings. For the sake of today’s discussion, we combine and restate the critical issues before us.

DISCUSSION

¶ 9. The standard of review of a trial court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment is de novo. Whitaker v. Limeco Corp., 32 So.3d 429, 433-34 (Miss.2010) (citing Burleson v. Lathem, 968 So.2d 930, 932 (Miss.2007) (citations omitted)). Accordingly, this Court must employ “a factual review tantamount to that of the trial court when considering evidentiary matters in the record.” Moss v. Batesville Casket Co., 935 So.2d 393, 397 (Miss.2006) (quoting Williams v. Bennett, 921 So.2d 1269, 1272 (Miss.2006)).

I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

¶ 10. The party requesting summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Watson Quality Ford, Inc. v. Casanova, 999 So.2d 830, 833 (Miss.2008) (citing Estate of Johnson v. Chatelain, 943 So.2d 684, 686 (Miss.2006)). When the moving party has supported its motion in accordance with Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings; his response ... must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.” Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Moreover, summary judgment “is appropriate when the non-moving party has failed to ‘make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.’ ” Watson Quality Ford, Inc., 999 So.2d at 832 (quoting Bullard v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 941 So.2d 812, 814 (Miss.2006)). “Mere general allegations which do not reveal detailed and precise facts will not prevent the award of summary judgment.” Brown v. Credit Ctr., Inc., 444 So.2d 358, 362 (Miss.1983) (citations omitted). “Pro se parties should be held to the same rules of procedure and substantive law as represented parties.” Dethlefs v. Beau Maison Dev. Corp., 511 So.2d 112, 118 (Miss.1987).

¶ 11. Buckel contends that the chancellor erred in granting summary judgment for two reasons. First, the chancellor incorrectly assigned evidentiary value to the affidavit of an interested witness. Second, the two press releases, the news story, and the Market Conduct Report presented in response to the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Commissioner possessed the documents Buckel had requested.

A. Bucket’s Argument against Donna Cromeans’s Affidavit.

¶ 12. To satisfy his burden as the movant for summary judgment, the Commissioner had “the burden of demonstrating there is no genuine issue of material fact....” Buchanan v. Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, Inc., 957 So.2d 969, 975 (Miss.2007) (citations omitted). The Commissioner sought to establish the nonexistence of an element essential to Buckel’s case. Watson Quality Ford, Inc., 999 So.2d at 833 (citing Bullard, 941 So.2d at 814). Specifically, under Mississippi Code Section 25-61-3(b) (Rev.2010), the Commissioner attempted to set forth facts showing that MID did not “possess” the public records Buckel had requested.

“Public records” shall mean all books, records, papers, accounts, letters, maps, photographs, films, cards, tapes, recordings or reproductions thereof, and any other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been used, being in use, or prepared, possessed or retained for use in the conduct, transaction or performance of any business, transaction, work, duty or function of any public body, or required to be maintained by any public body.

Miss. Code Ann. § 25-61-3(b) (Rev.2010) (emphasis added). The Commissioner provided Cromeans’s affidavit in support of the motion for summary judgment. Cromeans’s affidavit stated that she had searched diligently, but MID did not possess the documents Buckel had requested.

¶ 13. Buckel argues for the first time on appeal that Cromeans’s affidavit in support of the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment should not have been assigned evidentiary value. He states in his brief that “the Chancellor clearly awarded some credence to the affidavit of the commissioner, finding that MID was not in possession of the information which Buckel sought.” Citing this alleged error by the chancellor, Buckel argues that the Commissioner failed to prove that no genuine issue of material fact existed.

¶ 14. Buckel, however, failed to contest this affidavit in the trial court and, therefore, may not contest it for the first time on appeal. Bd. of Educ. of Calhoun County v. Warner, 853 So.2d 1159, 1164 (Miss.2003) (citing Brown, 444 So.2d at 365 (Miss.1983)). In Warner, this Court refused to allow a party to attack an affidavit for the first time on appeal: “Where the party against whom a motion for summary judgment is made wishes to attack one or more of the affidavits upon which the motion is based, he must file in the trial court a motion to strike the affidavit.” Id. Failing to attack the affidavit constitutes waiver of any objection to the affidavit. Cont’l Ins. Co. v. Transamerica Rental Fin. Corp., 748 So.2d 725, 731 (Miss.1999).

¶ 15. Assuming arguendo that this Court were to allow Buckel to contest this affidavit on appeal, Buckel still would not be entitled to relief. This Court has articulated its standard for the admissibility of affidavits in accordance with Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e): “[supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affi-ant is competent to testify to the matter stated therein.” Stuckey v. The Provident Bank, 912 So.2d 859, 868 (¶ 20) (Miss.2005). However, “[a] conclusory, self-serving affidavit, unsupported by material facts relevant to the proposition at issue, is insufficient as a basis to grant summary judgment.” Dalton v. Cellular S., Inc., 20 So.3d 1227, 1233-34 (Miss.2009).

If 16. Here, the chancellor did not err in allowing and considering Cromeans’s affidavit. Her affidavit was based on personal knowledge and was not conclusory. She did not simply suppose that MID did not possess the records. The affidavit clearly stated she had conducted a search at MID for the records requested and had supervised others in the search as well. This testimony as to the absence of the records at MID was material to this case, and Buckel has presented no evidence that the affidavit is self-serving, except for the fact that Cromeans worked at MID.

¶ 17. Nonetheless, Buckel argues that an interested witness’s affidavit should not be considered under United States Supreme Court precedent. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150-51, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (citations omitted). In Reeves, the Supreme Court stated that when making determinations regarding summary judgment, courts “should give credence to the evidence favoring the nonmovant as well as that ‘evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unim-peached, at least to the extent that that evidence comes from disinterested witnesses.’” Id. Based on Reeves, Buckel asserts that Cromeans was an interested witness, and thus her affidavit should not have been considered by the chancellor in determining the issue of whether to grant summary judgment.

¶ 18. This Court has not specifically adopted the Reeves test, instead relying on its own well-articulated standards for determining the admissibility of affidavits. Dalton, 20 So.3d at 1233-34. Reeves dealt with employment discrimination, not the dissemination of public records. Moreover, as the Commissioner correctly argues, without the testimony of his employees, the other avenues by which to prove the existence or nonexistence of documents would be costly and perhaps also subject to this same interested-party analysis.

¶ 19. In light of these problems, when following the Reeves disinterested-witness requirement, the Fifth Circuit, among other courts, has not strictly applied this requirement:

[T]he definition of an interested witness cannot be so broad as to require us to disregard testimony from a company’s agents regarding the company’s reasons for discharging an employee. As the Seventh Circuit noted in Traylor v. Brown, et al., 295 F.3d 783 (7th Cir.2002), to so hold would foreclose the possibility of summary judgment for employers, who almost invariably must rely on testimony of their agents to explain why the disputed action was taken.

Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893, 898 (5th Cir.2002). The Fifth Circuit has also held that a “decision-maker” does not constitute an interested person “without further evidence” of the witness’s interest. Wiley v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 287 Fed.Appx. 335, 339 (5th Cir.2008).

¶ 20. This Court refuses to apply Reeves in the context of today’s case. Buckel has not provided “further evidence” of Cromeans’s interest. She is a regular employee, not a decision-maker. Thus, we find the chancellor did not err in assigning evidentiary value to Cromeans’s affidavit and in finding that the Commissioner had satisfied his burden as the party moving for summary judgment.

B. Bucket’s Evidence in Response to the Commissioner’s Motion.

¶21. In response to the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, supported by Cromeans’s affidavit, Buckel argues that MID’s Market Conduct Report created a reasonable inference that MID was in possession of the public records he had requested relating to claims paid and filed. He also points to Commissioner Dale’s press releases and news story.

1. Market Conduct Report

¶ 22. Buckel asserts the State Farm Market Conduct Report indicated that MID was in possession of the requested documents because the Report stated that Commissioner Dale had subpoenaed 43,000 files from State Farm. Buckel, however, overstates the limited evidentiary value of the Market Conduct Report.

¶23. Buckel contends that the Report stated that MID had “requested” the claims information he sought and had in fact received this information “provided” by State Farm. Yet, nowhere in the Report did it specifically state that MID had requested this information. The Report stated that the examiners, whom MID had contracted to gather data and to complete the Report, had requested and received this information and that “[tjhis examination was performed by examiners, adjusters, and attorneys appointed by the Commissioner of Insurance [... ] in accordance with his statutory authority.” While Buckel also argues that a MID employee, Jimmy Blissett, was the examiner in charge, Buckel offers no proof that Blissett was an actual employee of MID, rather than an independent contractor.

¶ 24. While there is no doubt that the contractors/examiners had this data relating to claims filed and paid, there is no evidence that MID possessed the information sought in Buckel’s records request. The Market Conduct Report does not indicate with any certainty that MID possessed the data underlying this Report. Nowhere does the Report state that MID was, at any time, in possession of this underlying data or storing this information. MID did not compile information for the Report. At best, the Report creates an inference that because MID contracted to have the Report completed, then MID also had/stored the information underlying the Report. However, this inference, without more, fails to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Commissioner has ever possessed the documents. Buckel has not brought forth “probative evidence” legally sufficient to make apparent “the existence of a triable issue of fact.” Smith v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. of Grenada, 460 So.2d 786, 792 (Miss.1984) (quoting Union Planters Nat’l Leasing, Inc. v. Woods, 687 F.2d 117, 119 (5th Cir.1982)). To create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether MID had possession of the requested information, Buckel certainly could have conducted more discovery via the examiners, former Commissioner Dale, and other persons, but failed to do so.

2. Press Releases & News Story

¶ 25. Buckel also points to the press releases and the news story in which former Commissioner Dale updated the public on the number of claims filed and paid. Buckel argues that “it is simply not credible to believe that the former Commissioner either guesses at the [exact] figures or recalled the figures from memory based on the data provided from a third party source.” Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Buckel, this evidence does create an inference that Commissioner Dale had access to the data Buckel seeks, because the press releases do provide exact numbers of claims filed and paid. This evidence, however, does not create a reasonable inference that, years later, MID, under a new Commissioner, currently possesses the data underlying these press releases or news story. In fact, to draw the conclusion that MID possesses the data, one would have to pile inference upon inference. Specifically, one has to infer that Commissioner Dale possessed the data and then infer through Commissioner Dale’s possession that MID must have possessed and currently possesses the infoi'mation sought. Importantly, at the summary judgment hearing, Buckel even appreciated that MID might not have this material he had requested and conceded that MID had no responsibility to compile this information on claims.

¶ 26. Nonetheless, in support of his argument that the Report, the press releases, and the news story create circumstantially a reasonable inference sufficient to withstand a summary judgment motion, Buckel argues, “[S]ummary judgment is improper when the plaintiff has advanced enough circumstantial evidence to take [his] claims out of the realm of ‘mere conjecture’ and plant them in the solid ground of ‘reasonable inference.’” Thomas v. The Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 233 F.3d 326, 330 (5th Cir.2000) (citing Snapp v. Harrison, 699 So.2d 567, 570 (Miss.1997)).

¶ 27. From the record before us, this Court is constrained to find that Buckel has not presented circumstantial evidence sufficient for a trier of fact to find that the Commissioner possessed the documents requested. Commissioner Dale made these referenced statements more than two years before MID issued the Market Conduct Report in October of 2008 and almost three years before Buckel’s request. These documents do not state that MID possessed this information and only create attenuated inferences that MID currently possesses the information compiled by the examination team. Moreover, Buckel has cast no doubt on the affidavit in support of the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.

¶28. The law is clear that the party opposing the motion is required to bring forward significant probative evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact. Brown, 444 So.2d at 364 (citing Woods, 687 F.2d at 119). Without more supporting evidence, Buckel’s theory remains merely “possible,” not “probable.” Thomas, 233 F.3d at 330. Buckel’s evidence consists of “mere general allegations” and unsupported conclusions, not “detailed and precise facts,” and is not sufficient to withstand entry of summary judgment in light of Cromeans’s un-controverted affidavit. Brown, 444 So.2d at 362 (citing Liberty Leasing Co. v. Hillsum Sales Corp., 380 F.2d 1013, 1015 (5th Cir.1967)).

¶ 29. In sum, we find no error in the chancellor’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner, because Buckel did not put forth sufficient evidence to create a reasonable inference to satisfy this element of his claim, namely that the Commissioner “possessed” the records requested under Mississippi Code Section 25-61~3(b) (Rev.2006).

II. WHETHER THE CHANCERY COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT BUCKEL FAILED TO MAKE A PROPER RECORDS REQUEST.

¶ 30. The chancellor determined that Buckel had improperly requested documents underlying the Market Conduct Report from MID under Mississippi Code Section 25-61-5, which states in part that

[e]xcept as otherwise provided by Sections 25-61-9 and 25-61-11, all public records are hereby declared to be public property, and any person shall have the right to inspect, copy or mechanically reproduce or obtain a reproduction of any public record of a public body in accordance with reasonable written procedures adopted by the public body concerning the cost, time, place and method of access....

Miss.Code Ann. § 25-61-5(l)(a) (Rev.2010) (emphasis added). Based on this provision in the Mississippi Public Records Act, the Commissioner has adopted Regulation 83-1.4(b), which states, “A request should reasonably describe the desired record. Where possible, specific information regarding dates, files, titles, file designation, etc.[,] should be supplied.” MDOI Regulation 83 — 1.4(b), available at http://www.mid. state.ms.us/regulations/831reg.pdf (last visited Nov. 2, 2010).

¶ 31. The issue is whether Buckel’s initial request for public records was sufficient to include the information relating to the Market Conduct Report, which he first mentioned in his complaint. Buckel’s initial request to MID was “for any records relevant to his inquiry which sought information regarding the claims made, the claims paid and the portion of claims unpaid.” (Emphasis added). Buckel contends that the information in the complaint is a “subset of the records requested” and that the public policy supporting his right to view the documents should prevent his request from being refused as a matter of form. Id.

¶ 32. By the Public Records Act, Mississippi has declared as its public policy that public records generally be made available for viewing by any member of the public. Miss.Code Ann. § 25-61-1 (Rev. 2010). Allowing access to public records is a duty of the public bodies of Mississippi. Id. Nonetheless, as indicated in Section 25-61-5, a public body may set forth standards by which the public requests such documents. MID requires a request to “reasonably describe the desired record” and if “possible, specific information regarding dates, files, titles, file designation, etc.[,] should be supplied.” MDOI Regulation 83-1.4(b). The record indicates that Buckel did not specifically request the information underlying the Market Conduct Report until he had filed his complaint in chancery court.

¶ 33. Because Buckel sought such specific information and knew the “desired record” from which the information was derived, we cannot say that the chancellor erred in finding that Buckel did not make a proper records request. Buckel easily could have described the Market Conduct Report; instead, he made a general request accompanied by an instruction for MID to compile the information he wanted. If we were to find that Buckel did make a proper request, this Court would undermine the obvious purpose of MDOI Regulation 83-1.4(b): to promote the efficient production of documents by requiring persons to describe the documents requested. Id.

¶ 34. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we find no error in the chancellor’s finding that Buckel failed to make a proper records request.

III. WHETHER THE CHANCERY COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE EXAMINATION DOCUMENTS WERE EXEMPTED BY STATUTE.

¶35. This Court has clearly articulated its standards for interpreting a statute. “The most fundamental rule of statutory construction is the plain meaning rule, which provides that if a statute is not ambiguous, then this Court must apply the statute according to its terms.” State ex rel. Hood v. Madison County Bd. of Supervisors, 873 So.2d 85, 90 (Miss.2004) (citing City of Natchez v. Sullivan, 612 So.2d 1087, 1089 (Miss.1992)). Likewise, “[i]t is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that ‘when two statutes pertain to the same subject, they must be read together in light of legislative intent.’” Tunica County v. Hampton Co. Nat’l Sur., 27 So.3d 1128, 1133 (Miss.2009) (citing Lenoir v. Madison County, 641 So.2d 1124, 1129 (Miss.1994)).

¶ 36. Furthermore, under the rules of statutory construction, “repeal of statutes by implication is not favored.” Id. at 1133 (citing Roberts v. Miss. Republican Party State Executive Comm., 465 So.2d 1050, 1051 (Miss.1985)). Statutes “on the same subject, although in apparent conflict, should if possible be construed in harmony with each other to give effect to each.” Id. at 1134 (citing Miss. Gaming Comm’n v. Imperial Palace of Miss., 751 So.2d 1025, 1029 (Miss.1999)) (citations omitted). Moreover, “all statutes in pari materia are taken into consideration, and a legislative intent [is] deduced from a consideration as a whole.” Id.

¶ 37. The issue of statutory interpretation before this Court is whether the Mississippi Public Records Act exempts the examination materials Buckel requested. The answer depends on this Court’s interpretation of two statutes. The Mississippi Public Records Act creates an exemption for public records via subsequently enacted statutes:

The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to conflict with, amend, repeal or supersede any constitutional or statutory law or decision of a court of this state or the United States which at the time of this chapter is effective or thereafter specifically declares a public record to be confidential or privileged, or provides that a public record shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter.

Miss.Code Ann. § 25-61-11 (Rev.2010) (emphasis added). Pursuant to this section of the Act, Mississippi Code Section 83-5-209(7) creates an exemption to the Act and grants the Commissioner discretion in determining whether to disclose examination documents:

All working papers, recorded information, documents and copies thereof produced by, obtained by or disclosed to the commissioner or any other person in the course of an examination made under Sections 83-5-201 through 83-5-217 may be held by the commissioner as a record not required to be made public under the Mississippi Public Records Act.

Miss.Code Ann. § 83-5-209(7) (Rev.1999) (emphasis added). Buckel argues that the Public Records Act creates two exceptions to its otherwise broad policy of allowing persons to inspect public records. He contends that the Commissioner did not raise one exception pertaining to trade secrets or proprietary information and that the second exception, cited above, is inapplicable because it only “provides a ground for withholding what is otherwise a public record where such disclosure is mandatorily prohibited by another statute.” (Emphasis added). Buckel contends that the exception created in Section 83-5-209(7) “describes a discretionary function” that is “clearly not envisioned ... or permitted by the Public Records Act.” In essence, Buck-el takes issue with the “shall be exempt” language in the Records Act and the discretionary language in Section 83-5-209(7).

¶ 38. This Court finds that the two statutes, when read together, do conflict, but are not in irreconcilable conflict, and should be harmonized, giving effect to each. “Statutes on the same subject, although in apparent conflict, should if possible be construed in harmony with each other to give effect to each.” Roberts, 465 So.2d at 1052. First, the two statutes conflict. The Public Records Act provides only for mandatory exemptions based on its plain language (“shall be exempt”) and does not specifically provide for discretionary exemptions. Miss.Code Ann. § 25-61-11 (Rev.2010). Second, although in apparent conflict, this Court can construe them to be harmonious and give effect to the Legislature’s intent. Section 25-61-11 reserves for the Legislature a broad general right to create a new statutory exception to the Public Records Act, and Section 83-5-209(7) creates a new exception in positive words. The Legislature clearly had knowledge of the language in the Public Records Act when it drafted Section 83-5-209(7), because it specifically references the Public Records Act in that section when it grants the Commissioner discretion in determining which records to exempt. Importantly, if this Court found that the mandatory language of the Public Records Act controlled, then Section 83-5-209(7) would be repealed by implication, and under the rules of statutory construction, “repeal of statutes by implication is not favored.” Tunica County, 27 So.3d at 1133 (citing Roberts, 465 So.2d at 1051).

¶ 39. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the chancellor did not err in finding that Section 83-5-209(7), as interpreted in pari materia, does create an exemption to the Public Records Act. The manner in which the Legislature determines the exemptions to the Public Records Act is strictly within the power of the Legislature: “[t]he preferred policy of disclosing public records must cede to the legislatively-mandated exemptions thereto as ‘the wisdom or folly of the pertinent legislation is strictly within the constitutional power of the Legislature!!]’ Any disagreements with those directives are best aimed toward the Legislature.” Miss. State Univ. v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, 992 So.2d 595, 610 (Miss.2008) (quoting Gannett River States Publ’g Co. v. Entergy Miss., Inc., 940 So.2d 221, 226 (Miss.2006)).

CONCLUSION

¶ 40. Based on today’s discussion, we affirm the chancery court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner, as Buckel has failed to present evidence indicative of a genuine issue of material fact. We also find that the chancellor did not err in finding that Buckel had made an improper records request and that the Mississippi Public Records Act exempted the documents requested by Buckel. For these reasons, the judgment of the Chancery Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County is affirmed.

¶ 41. AFFIRMED.

WALLER, C.J., DICKINSON, RANDOLPH, LAMAR, KITCHENS, CHANDLER AND PIERCE, JJ., ' CONCUR. GRAVES, P.J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.

      . The Mississippi Insurance Department (MID) is sometimes referred to herein as the Mississippi Department of Insurance.

      . On October 19, 2006, as a result of controversy concerning the handling of claims by State Farm Insurance Company, MID advised State Farm that MID was assembling an examination team "to commence immediately to investigate how State Farm treated its policyholders who had filed claims as a result of Hurricane Katrina.” The examination was "to investigate the handling of homeowner claims in the lower six counties of Mississippi....”

      . The January 30, 2006, press release stated in part: "Some 187,473 claims have been filed in Jackson, Harrison, Hancock, Stone, George, and Pearl River Counties. In Jackson County there have been over 45,000 claims filed and over $485 million in claims paid....” The November 21, 2005, press release contained a similar report, updated by the 2006 press release.

      .The news story appeared in the Stone County newspaper on June 22, 2006: "There have been 5,244 property insurance claims filed in Stone County because of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and as of June 6, $62,852,544 have been paid out by insurance companies in settlements, according to the Mississippi Department of Insurance....”

      . With regard to the origin of these exact numbers, Commissioner Chaney contended that former Commissioner Dale, not a party, and MID were probably "simply translating numbers provided by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.”

      . The Commissioner argued that the Report written by the examination team, which MID hired as contractors to perform the examination of State Farm, did not indicate that the examiners presented this underlying data to the Commissioner.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: ISHEE, J.,

license: Public Domain

text:
    Shawn Lee DUNCAN and April Marie Duncan, Individually and as Personal Representatives and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Arthur Eugene Duncan, Deceased, Appellants, v. Satish VERMA, M.D., Appellee.
    No. 2008-CA-01834-COA.
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    Nov. 24, 2009.
    Rehearing Denied July 20, 2010.
    Certiorari Denied Nov. 10, 2010.
    Dana J. Swan, attorney for appellants.
    Tommie G. Williams, attorney for appel-lee.
    Before LEE, P.J., ISHEE and MAXWELL, JJ.
   ISHEE, J.,

for the Court.

¶ 1. Arthur Eugene Duncan (Arthur) was born on July 16, 1999, at Baptist Memorial Hospital-DeSoto (BMH-DeSo-to) in DeSoto County, Mississippi. Arthur experienced trouble breathing shortly after his birth and it was discovered that he had a bilateral spontaneous pneumothorax. On July 18, 1999, Arthur started having decreased oxygen saturation and was transferred to Baptist Memorial Hospital-East (BMH-East) in Memphis, Tennessee, where he died that same day.

¶ 2. On July 12, 2001, Arthur’s parents, Shawn Lee and April Marie Duncan (the Duncans), individually and as personal representatives and wrongful death beneficiaries of Arthur, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Mississippi. The Duncans asserted in their complaint, claims for medical negligence against Satish Verma, M.D., for care provided to Arthur between July 16,1999, and July 18, 1999. Other defendants were originally named in the case, but they all were dismissed.

¶ 3. Dr. Verma, a licensed pediatrician, filed a motion for summary judgment on January 24, 2003, and in July 2008, he filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment. In support of his motion, Dr. Ver-ma argued that: he did not owe a duty to the Duncans; the Duncans failed to present any evidence to establish such a duty; and no evidence existed to establish such a duty. The Duncans did not file a response to Dr. Verma’s original motion, but they filed a motion arguing that a factual question was present, thus precluding summary judgment.

¶ 4. On October 2, 2008, the trial court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Verma and dismissed any and all allegations of negligence. In granting the summary judgment motion, the trial court held that no material issue of fact existed because the Duncans failed to offer any expert testimony regarding the duty owed by Dr. Verma to Arthur after a neonatologist had been consulted, had begun actively treating Arthur, and had assumed the responsibility for the care of Arthur. Feeling aggrieved, the Dun-cans appeal the trial court’s ruling. Finding no error, we affirm.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5. This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment under a de novo standard. Albert v. Scott’s Truck Plaza, Inc., 978 So.2d 1264, 1266(¶ 5) (Miss.2008) (citation omitted). The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Id. “The non-moving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials in the pleadings but must set forth specific facts showing that there are genuine issues for trial.” Id. This Court will examine “all the evidentia-ry matters before us, including admissions in pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and affidavits,” and we will do so in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. If there exists a genuine issue of material fact, then summary judgment is not appropriate. Id.

DISCUSSION

¶ 6. The Duncans assert only one issue on appeal—that the trial court erred in holding as a matter of law that Dr. Verma, as treating physician, owed no duty to Arthur after consulting with another specialist on the care of his patient. Accordingly, the Duncans argue that it was error to grant Dr. Verma’s motion for summary judgment.

¶7. In support of their argument that summary judgment was inappropriate, the Duncans asserted that their expert, Dr. Shane L. Bennoch—a pediatrician and neonatologist, had rendered an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical probability that Dr. Verma and BMH-DeSoto failed to meet the minimum standard of care in the treatment of the child and that said failure to meet the standard of care had resulted in Arthur’s death. The Duncans argued that Dr. Verma, as treating physician and pediatrician, remained responsible for Arthur’s care even after he consulted with a neonatologist.

¶ 8. In Cheeks v. Bio-Medical Applications, Inc., 908 So.2d 117, 120(¶ 8) (Miss.2005) (internal citations omitted), the Mississippi Supreme Court discussed the proof required in medical malpractice cases, stating:

To present a prima facie case of medical malpractice, a plaintiff, (1) after establishing the doctor-patient relationship and its attendant duty, is generally required to present expert testimony!;] (2) identifying and articulating the requisite standard of care; and (3) establishing that the defendant physician failed to conform to the standard of care. In addition, (4) the plaintiff must prove the physician’s noncompliance with the standard of care caused the plaintiffs injury, as well as proving (5) the extent of the plaintiffs damages. A physician who is sufficiently “familiar with the standards of a medical specialty, may testify as an expert, even though he does not practice the specialty himself.” “It is our general rule that in a medical malpractice action negligence cannot be established without medical testimony that the defendant failed to use ordinary skill and care.”

More specifically, an expert is needed to show how a breach of the physician’s duty proximately caused the plaintiffs injury. Palmer v. Anderson Infirmary Benevolent Ass’n, 656 So.2d 790, 795 (Miss.1995).

¶ 9. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b) states that “[a] party against whom a claim,- counter-claim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory judgment is sought may, at any time, move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in his favor as to all or any part thereof.” Rule 56(c) states, in pertinent part, that:

The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

The party- moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuading the trial court that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that they are, based on the existing facts, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Scales v. Lackey Mem’l Hosp., 988 So.2d 426, 432(¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Paepke v. N. Miss. Med. Ctr., 744 So.2d 809, 812(¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.1999)).

¶ 10. To support his motion for summary judgment, Dr. Verma produced affidavits from Dr. Manoj Narayanan, Dr. Joe Philips, and Dr. Desh Sidhu. Dr. Si-dhu and Dr. Narayanan testified that they were both personally familiar with the manner in which the neonatologists practice with regard to patients admitted to the nursery at BMH-DeSoto in July 1999.

¶ 11. In July 1999, BMH-DeSoto could not obtain the services of a neonatologist at their DeSoto County facility. Since there was a need for neonatal services at the facility, BMH-DeSoto entered into the Neonatology Services Agreement (Agreement) with East Memphis Neonatology Associates (the Group) on October 1, 1996. The Group would treat sick newborns at BMH-DeSoto by utilizing the services of the Group’s licensed, competent, qualified, and credentialed neonatal nurse practitioners. Under this agreement, the Group provided all control, direction, and supervision to the certified neonatal nurse practitioners.

¶ 12. Dr. Narayanan stated in his affidavit that “once the neonatologist was consulted regarding Arthur Eugene Duncan and began to treat the baby with the assistance of his nurse practitioners, this child was under the primary care of the neona-tologist ... once the neonatologist accepted the consult and began treatment, he must be considered the primary physician for this infant.” Dr. Narayanan also gave his opinion based on his education, training, experience, and practice at BMH-De-Soto that Dr. Verma did not violate the standard of care. Dr. Philips and Dr. Sidhu both stated in their affidavits that they were of the opinion that Dr. Verma complied with the standards of care expected of a general practitioner in this case.

¶ 18. Once Arthur began experiencing respiratory distress, Dr. Verma asked the nurses in the nursery to obtain a neonatol-ogy consult, which was a higher level of care for the infant. A short time later, a certified neonatal nurse practitioner was at Arthur’s bedside. The neonatology team assumed care of the infant at that point and executed all orders for his care. No evidence has been provided to show that Dr. Verma gave any further orders regarding the treatment of Arthur. Once the neonatology team accepted the consult, began actively treating Arthur, and assumed responsibility for his care, Dr. Ver-ma no longer owed any duty to Arthur.

¶ 14. The Duncans have failed to provide any evidence to support their argument that Dr. Verma owed a duty to Arthur after the neonatology team was consulted and began treatment of Arthur. Therefore, they failed to show that a genuine issue of material fact existed, and the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Verma.

¶ 15. THE JUDGMENT OF THE DE-SOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANTS.

KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.

      . Baptist Memorial Hospital-East is now known as Baptist Memorial Hospital-Memphis and is affiliated with Baptist Memorial Hospital-DeSoto.

      . A neonatologist is a physician who provides neonatal care to newborns. Dr. Verma was not a neonatologist at the time that Arthur was a patient at the hospital. BMH-DeSoto did not have a neonatologist on staff and could not obtain one; therefore, they could not provide neonatal care to newborns in their hospital.

      . East Memphis Neonatology Associates is a Tennessee professional corporation which engages in the practice of medicine, specializing in neonatology. It appears from the record that this corporation has no affiliation with Baptist Memorial Hospital.


author: ROBERTS, J.,

text:
    Anthony Lee TUCKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
    No. 2008-KA-00762-COA.
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    Nov. 24, 2009.
    Rehearing Denied April 20, 2010.

      Leslie S. Lee, Jackson, attorney for appellant.
    Office of the Attorney General by Jeffrey A. Klingfuss, attorney for appellee.
    Before KING, C.J., BARNES and ROBERTS, JJ.
   ROBERTS, J.,

for the Court.

¶ 1. Anthony Tucker was indicted for possession of stolen property with a value of over $500 in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-17-70 (Rev. 2006), which was amended to add habitual-offender status pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2007). Following a jury trial on October 3-5, 2007, a guilty verdict was returned, and Tucker was sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) without the possibility of parole, probation, or early release, and ordered to pay a fine of $10,000 upon his release.

¶ 2. Tucker appeals, arguing that: (1) the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict or, in the alternative, the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence; (2) he was improperly charged because the State’s theory of the case was that Tucker actually stole the property; (3) in the alternative, the indictment was insufficient to charge the crime for which he was convicted; (4) the trial judge erred in refusing jury instructions D-2A and D-3, and granting instructions S-3 and S-4; (5) the trial judge erred in failing to sustain a defense objection during the State’s closing argument; (6) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel, thereby depriving him of his constitutional right to a fair trial; and (7) cumulative error demands a new trial. The record does not reflect that Tucker’s assistance of counsel was constitutionally ineffective, and the parties have not stipulated that the record is adequate for us to weigh the trial judge’s findings of fact. Therefore, we affirm Tucker’s conviction and sentence without prejudice, so he may supplement the record with additional evidence in which to pursue his ineffective assistance of counsel claim through appropriate post-conviction-relief proceedings.

FACTS

¶ 3. On Monday October 10, 2005, at approximately 10:00 a.m., Jason Cole arrived at his place of employment, Foot Gear in West Point, Mississippi, and discovered that the gate’s lock had been broken and the front door was ajar. Once inside, Cole found that most of the store’s athletic wear was missing from the racks along the wall and throughout the store; the phone line had been cut; and the store’s computer had been stolen. He also discovered that Foot Gear’s storage room had been ransacked, and a myriad of athletic shoes were missing. Pairs of shoes were taken both with and without the matching shoe box. After Cole contacted the West Point Police Department, it was discovered that the security-system lines, which were located behind the store, had been cut, thereby disabling surveillance cameras. The amount of inventory stolen from Foot Gear was valued at approximately $109,614.

¶ 4. No fingerprints were recovered from the store, nor were there any leads related to the burglary until October 18, 2005, when the police received an anonymous tip from a female caller. Detective Zate McGee, who investigated the burglary, testified that the anonymous caller told the police that “Tucker had broken into Foot Gear on October 8th[,] and ... he had hid[den] the merchandise that was stolen in a yellow shed and in a house located at 1893 Matthews Gin Road.” Detective McGee testified that, following standard procedure, she checked to see if Tucker was in the police system. Her investigation revealed that Tucker was listed on the MDOC’s active offender’s list. As a convicted felon released on probation from the State of Wisconsin, Tucker was living in Mississippi via the Interstate Compact Agreement. Tucker had requested a transfer to Mississippi in order to live with his sister, Christann Gibbs (Christann). Tucker’s .parole officer in Mississippi was Mississippi Department of Corrections’ employee Johnny Hancock. After being contacted by the West Point Police, Hancock, accompanied by Officer McGee and Ryan Boykin, with the MDOC, went to investigate the residence described by the informant. During his testimony, Hancock detailed what occurred at the home.

¶ 5. Upon their arrival, Hancock noticed Tucker walking from the house, which was located at 1893 Matthews Gin Road, toward a yellow storage shed that was located behind the house. Tucker’s sister, Christann; his brother-in-law, James Gibbs (Gibbs); and Erica Witherspoon, Tucker’s Mend, were also outside the house when Hancock and the other officers arrived. Hancock informed Tucker and the others that they were there to search for stolen merchandise, and initially, Gibbs gave his consent for a search of the house. A search warrant or consent was not needed to search the shed because that was supposed to be the residence of Tucker. As a condition of Tucker’s parole and interstate transfer of his supervision, Hancock was authorized to search Tucker’s residence, or investigate matters concerning Tucker, as he was under the control, or authority, of the MDOC. At trial, there was testimony given that Tucker lived in the house rather than the shed, but evidence supported that someone had been living in the shed. The shed had a bed that appeared to have been slept in, a sofa, a coffee table, an ashtray, electrical service, and other signs of occupancy. Also, Tucker’s packed duffle bag was located in the shed.

¶ 6. Hancock testified that upon entering the shed, he observed numerous articles of new clothing and athletic shoes. Among other things, Hancock specifically remembered seeing a “whole line of brand new white shoes lined up at the edge of the bed” and “numerous trash bags loaded with brand new clothing.” Hancock testified that Tucker told him that the “items were not stolen, that he got the items from ... [t]wo guys in a white van.” However, at trial, through his attorney and his sister, Christann, Tucker claimed that the items were a gift from Gibbs.

¶ 7. By the time the police searched the shed, Christann, Gibbs, and Witherspoon had entered the house, locked the door, and would not let the officers enter. The officers determined that a search warrant was needed, so while Detective McGee went to obtain a warrant, Hancock and Boykin remained at the residence and secured the area to ensure that no one left the house. Tucker had been handcuffed and placed in the back seat of the patrol car.

¶ 8. During this time, Hancock and the other officers noticed a burn pile in the back yard. Because it was evening, the officers used flashlights to discern what had been burned. In the ashes and remains of the burn pile, the officers observed and photographed pieces of clothing tags, wire that appeared to be from commercial-type clothes hangers, and small pieces of plastic that looked like melted plastic clothes-hanger clasps used by retail stores. After obtaining a search warrant and upon entering the house, the officers found approximately 140 items of new athletic wear, jeans, caps, and athletic shoes of various sizes. Not only were there clothing and shoes strewn about the house, there were numerous garbage bags full of new clothes.

¶ 9. In an effort to explain the copious amounts of new athletic wear, Christann testified that her husband often brought home multiple pairs of expensive athletic shoes and/or clothes for her and their five children, and that she had no reason to suspect that he had not purchased the items. She testified that her husband was “real kindhearted and generous ... [and that he did not] mind helping people.” Christann testified that Gibbs spoiled her and the children, so it was not uncommon for him to bring home six or more pairs of expensive new tennis shoes per person, at one time. However, she also testified that she and Gibbs were going through a divorce, in part, because he had pulled a gun on her, and she thought he brought so many expensive new clothes home to impress her or win her back. Tucker did not testify. At trial, Christann was still a co-defendant, and Gibbs had pled guilty to possession of stolen goods on July 19, 2006. Aggrieved by the jury’s guilty verdict, Tucker now appeals.

DISCUSSION

I. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WHETHER THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

¶ 10. Our standard of review relating to the legal sufficiency of evidence is well settled:

In reviewing whether the evidence supporting a jury verdict is legally sufficient, this Court does not determine whether from the evidence we would have voted to convict or acquit. Rather, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational juror could have concluded beyond a, reasonable doubt that all elements of the crime were satisfied. The proper remedy for insufficient evidence is for the Court to reverse and render.

Readus v. State, 997 So.2d 941, 944(¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). However, when reviewing whether the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, we sit as a hypothetical “thirteenth juror,” and “we will only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Lamar v. State, 988 So.2d 364, 367(¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (citing Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 844(¶ 18) (Miss.2005)). If an appellate court disagrees with the verdict of the jury, the proper remedy is to grant a new trial. Id. (citation omitted).

A. Legal Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶ 11. Tucker moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case-in-chief and renewed the motion after the State finally rested after rebuttal. Tucker last challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence when he filed a post-trial motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. “Therefore, this Court is to consider all of the evidence presented throughout the course of the trial. ‘All evidence and inferences derived therefrom, tending to support the verdict, must be accepted as true, while all evidence favoring the defendant must be disregarded.’” Gibson v. State, 731 So.2d 1087, 1092(¶ 12) (Miss.1998) (citing Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1252 (Miss.1995)).

¶ 12. Tucker argues that “[tjhis case should have never gone to the jury.” And, that “[tjhere was clearly insufficient evidence that Tucker constructively possessed any of the items alleged to be stolen ... or that [Tucker] knew or should have known that the items were stolen.” Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we disagree.

¶ 13. Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-17-70(1) states:

A person commits the crime of receiving stolen property if he intentionally possesses, receives, retains or disposes of stolen property knowing that it has been stolen or having reasonable grounds to believe it has been stolen, unless the property is possessed, received, retained or disposed of with intent to restore it to the owner.

(Emphasis added). Tucker argues that the State failed to meet its burden to prove that he constructively possessed stolen items because the State did not prove that he exercised dominion or control over the items. With regard to constructive possession, the supreme court has recognized that: “What constitutes a sufficient external relationship between the defendant and the ... property to complete the concept of ‘possession’ is a question which is not susceptible of a specific rule.” Curry v. State, 249 So.2d 414, 416 (Miss.1971).

¶ 14. However, the following must be established:

[T]here must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that [the] defendant was aware of the presence and character of the particular substance [or property] and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it. It need not be actual physical possession. Constructive possession may be shown by establishing that the [property or item] involved was subject to his dominion or control. Proximity is usually an essential element, but by itself [it] is not adequate in the absence of other incriminating circumstances.

Id. In other words, “the State must show incriminating circumstances, in addition to proximity, in order to prove constructive possession.” Cheatham v. State, 12 So.3d 598, 601(¶7) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (citing Fultz v. State, 573 So.2d 689, 690 (Miss.1990)).

¶ 15. Tucker relies on the fact that he did not own the house or shed that he was living in, and he had only lived there a few days before the stolen athletic wear was discovered. This argument is unavailing, as ownership of residential property or one’s length of stay is not outcome determinative in the legal sufficiency of evidence; it is simply a factor for consideration.

¶ 16. Tucker previously had told Hancock, his parole officer, that he lived in the shed, and it was evident that someone had been occupying the shed. Also, Tucker’s packed duffle bag was located in the shed. The shed, as well as the house, contained numerous items that were shown to have been stolen from Foot Gear. Although Christann testified that Tucker was occupying the living room of the house, she stated that Tucker did not have a key to the residence; she said that he could not come and go from the home at will. From the evidence presented, one could reasonably conclude that Tucker was primarily occupying the shed, but he had access to the home as well. Even if Tucker were sleeping in the living room of the house, there were numerous stolen items in the living room and throughout the house in close proximity to Tucker, Christann, and Gibbs.

¶ 17. In addition to the evidence of Tucker’s living arrangements, remains of charred clothing tags and burned retail-type clothes hangers were also located on the premises. Additionally, the anonymous informant reported that Tucker had robbed Foot Gear and had hidden the stolen merchandise in the yellow shed and house located at 1892 Matthews Gin Road, where Tucker and the items were found. Most condemning, Hancock testified that Tucker told him that he had received the stolen items from two guys in a white van. This was in contradiction to Christann’s later testimony that her husband had given Tucker the items as a gift.

¶ 18. Considering the facts in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the record indicates that the State presented ample evidence of “incriminating circumstances” other than proximity to support a finding that Tucker intentionally possessed, received, retained, or disposed of stolen property knowing that it had been stolen or having reasonable grounds to believe it had been stolen. This issue is without merit.

B. Overwhelming Weight of the Evidence

¶ 19. Tucker argues that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is against the verdict, and that the State failed to prove that Tucker exercised dominion or control over the stolen items, used the items, or intended to convert the items for personal use. Tucker asserts that the “only evidence of any guilty knowledge came from Johnny Hancock, who testified [that] Tucker told him he [had] received the property from two guys in a van.” This assertion is inadequate to prove that the weight of the evidence is against the verdict.

¶ 20. Tucker correctly recognizes Thompson v. State, 457 So.2d 953, 956 (Miss.1984) for the principle that mere possession without any indication of guilty knowledge is insufficient to uphold a conviction of receiving stolen goods. The evidence presented to the jury in Thompson was minimal when compared to the evidence presented to the jury in the instant case. And, contrary to Tucker’s argument, “[a] conviction may be had on circumstantial evidence alone.” Tolbert v. State, 407 So.2d 815, 820 (Miss.1981) (citation omitted). This is true because “[c]ircumstantial evidence need not exclude every possible doubt but only every reasonable doubt, or reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Id. (citation omitted).

¶ 21. In Thompson, a set of silverware had been stolen from a residence and found its way to Charles Thompson’s possession. Thompson, 457 So.2d at 955. Thompson admitted purchasing the silverware and sending it to a mint, but he denied knowing that it was stolen. Id. The only evidence that the State presented was a postal receipt, memorializing the shipment of the silver to a mint, which was found in Thompson’s rented storage building inside a stereo equipment box, that was shown to be property of Rose’s Department Store. Id. In Thompson, the fact that the stereo equipment was stolen was not presented to the jury because it was excluded, and the State presented no evidence other than the shipping receipt to show that Thompson must have known that the items were stolen. Id. The supreme court found that argument to be tenuous, and it held the State had presented no proof that Thompson knew the items were stolen; the supreme court went on to opine that guilty knowledge was the essence of the crime. Id. at 955-56.

¶ 22. Returning to the instant case, a review of the record reveals that the circumstantial evidence presented weighed heavily against a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We will not reiterate the numerous facts stated above, but suffice it to say, there was substantially more evidence presented to the jury than a lone receipt found in a storage building. The weight of the evidence established that a reasonable person could have concluded that Tucker knew or should have known that the items were stolen when “two guys in a white van” appeared to give away hundreds, and possibly thousands, of dollars’ worth of new athletic wear. Other than Christann’s conflicting testimony, Tucker has presented no evidence that Hancock was inaccurate or dishonest in his account of Tucker’s admission. When presented with conflicting testimony, it is for the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses, as well as the evidence. Nix v. State, 8 So.3d 141, 146(¶ 26) (Miss.2009) (citation omitted). If the means by which Tucker said he had received the stolen items were not enough to deduce guilty knowledge, the removal and burning of the clothing tags and retail-type clothes hangers were also indicative of guilty knowledge. Contrary to Tucker’s assertion, there was more presented to the jury than hearsay testimony of an anonymous informant that Tucker was in possession of the stolen merchandise, and we hold that the verdict reached by the jury is consistent with the weight of the evidence presented by the State in the instant action. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.

II. WHETHER TUCKER WAS IMPROPERLY CHARGED BECAUSE THE STATE’S THEORY OF THE CASE WAS THAT TUCKER ACTUALLY STOLE THE PROPERTY.

¶ 28. In what seems rather contradictory to his claim of innocence and ignorance, Tucker relies on Hentz v. State, 489 So.2d 1386, 1389 (Miss.1986) for this issue asserting that, where a defendant is charged with receiving stolen goods and the evidence shows that he is guilty of the larceny of the goods in question, he cannot be convicted of possession of stolen property. Tucker is correct in his understanding of Hentz. The supreme court stated:

It is elementary law that one who steals property cannot be convicted of receiving, concealing or aiding in concealing the property stolen. The statutes making the receiving of stolen goods a substantive offense are not intended to punish the thief by way of a double penalty but are directed against those who would make theft easy or profitable. Nor can one who has stolen property jointly with another, that is to say, who jointly with another takes part in the caption and asport[a]ta[t]ion of the property, be convicted of receiving stolen property....

Id. (quoting Thomas v. State, 205 Miss. 653, 39 So.2d 272, 273 (1949)). However, Tucker does not fully address the significant differences presented in Hentz and the instant case.

¶ 24. In Hentz, a case which involved the theft of a combine and its subsequent destruction, the State failed to furnish discovery to the defense that may have proven that Larry Hentz was guilty of the actual theft, rather than the crime he was charged with, which was possession of stolen goods. Id. at 1388. Such evidence would have provided Hentz with a complete defense to the crime of possession of stolen goods. Id. The State claimed that it did not furnish the evidence to the defense because it did not think the evidence was exculpatory. Id. However, at trial, the State presented evidence that Hentz, in his own truck, took an accomplice to the place where the combine was located; he was present, aiding, abetting, and participating in the theft of the combine; and Hentz arranged for the destruction of the combine in order to remove it from his father’s property. Id. at 1389. Unlike Hentz, no testimony or evidence established that Tucker was present at the scene of the burglary.

¶ 25. As discussed, Tucker initially told Hancock the merchandise found in the shed was not stolen, and that he had gotten it from two guys in a white van. However, he discarded that reason, and at trial, he argued Gibbs must have bought or somehow acquired the items. He asserted that they were simply a gift to him. In response, the State was allowed to present evidence that the items were stolen from Foot Gear, and that Tucker knew or should have known that he was in possession of stolen merchandise. It was made clear to the jury, through the trial judge’s statements, that Tucker was on trial for possession of stolen goods, not burglary. Furthermore, testimony was given that the police had recovered no fingerprints or leads about the burglary until the anonymous informant contacted the police. Other than the State’s remarks, during its closing argument, that “they” robbed the store or that it was an “ex-con” or “professional” job, the State offered no proof that Tucker was involved in the actual burglary. The remarks were defused when the trial judge stated, “[t]he jury is allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. The defendant is not on trial for burglary.” (Emphasis added). Although the aftermath of the burglary and some surrounding events were described, the record reflects that the State presented a case against Tucker for possession of stolen property, for which he was charged. And, unlike in Hentz, there is no indication in the record that any discovery, prior to trial, was withheld from Tucker. This issue is without merit.

III. WHETHER THE INDICTMENT WAS INSUFFICIENT TO CHARGE THE CRIME FOR WHICH TUCKER WAS CONVICTED.

¶ 26. Although Tucker did not raise this issue at trial, “substantive challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment are not waivable and may be raised for the first time on appeal.” Havard v. State, 928 So.2d 771, 801(¶ 59) (Miss.2006) (citation omitted). Tucker claims that the indictment in the instant case “clearly had a substantive defect in failing to sufficiently identify the stolen property [he] was alleged to constructively possess.” We disagree.

¶ 27. The determination of whether an indictment is fatally defective is a question of law and warrants a broad standard of review by this Court. Nguyen v. State, 761 So.2d 873, 874(¶ 3) (Miss.2000) (citation omitted). Therefore, as a question of law, the standard of review is de novo. Jones v. State, 993 So.2d 386, 394(¶ 19) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (citation omitted). The purpose of an indictment is “to inform the defendant with some measure of certainty as to the nature of the charges brought against him so that he may have a reasonable opportunity to prepare an effective defense....” Moses v. State, 795 So.2d 569, 571(¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2001).

¶ 28. Rule 7.06 of the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules, provides the framework for a proper indictment, and it states the following:

The indictment upon which the defendant is to be tried shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and shall fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation. Formal and technical words are not necessary in an indictment, if the offense can be substantially described without them. An indictment shall also include the following:
1. The name of the accused;
2. The date on which the indictment was filed in court;
3. A statement that the prosecution is brought in the name and by the authority of the State of Mississippi;
4. The county and judicial district in which the indictment is brought;
5. The date and, if applicable, the time at which the offense was alleged to have been committed. Failure to state the correct date shall not render the indictment insufficient;
6. The signature of the foreman of the grand jury issuing it; and
7. The words “against the peace and dignity of the state.”
The court on motion of the defendant may strike from the indictment any sur-plusage, including unnecessary allegations or aliases.
[Adopted effective May 1, 1995; amended August 26,1999.]

We now consider the indictment in the instant case. It included the following:

ANTHONY TUCKER ... on or about the 18th day of October, 2005, in the County aforesaid, did unlawfully, wilfully, and feloniously, receive or possess the personal property of Haresh Khiata-ni d.b.a. Foot Gear, to-wit: athletic apparel, said property having a total value in excess of $500.00, and having been feloniously taken away from the said Haresh Khiatani d.b.a. Foot Gear, and further that the said ANTHONY TUCKER knew or should have known at the time of the receiving or possessing of said property that said property had been so feloniously taken, in violation of MCA § 97-17-70; contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi.

¶ 29. Tucker’s indictment included the seven formal requirements stated above. It appears that Tucker takes issue with the fact that he was indicted for possessing “athletic apparel ... having a total value in excess of $500.00” instead of individually-listed items of apparel. He claims that because there was “property recovered in all of the different areas of James Gibb’s property, this [description] was insufficient.” Tucker relies heavily upon Nguyen for support of his argument related to this issue.

¶ 30. In Nguyen, the supreme court found an indictment, which stated that Khang Son Nguyen and Thi Mai Le (Nguyen appellants) were charged with receiving or possessing “114 items, including ...,” was insufficient. Nguyen, 761 So.2d at 877(¶ 12). The supreme court stated that since the indictment said “including” rather than “comprised of,” there could have been other items that the Nguyen appellants could have been accused of receiving, which were not included in the indictment. Id. Also, and even more significant, the supreme court found that the indictment was insufficient because the stolen property was made up of six different categories or classifications of goods. Id. That is not true in the instant case.

¶ 31. Despite Tucker’s assertion that we “would be hard-pressed to find a citizen in [Mississippi] to agree that a[n] Ole Miss sweatshirt is identical to a Mississippi State or Jackson State sweatshirt[,]” we think that all would agree they, nonetheless, both are sweatshirts. And as such, both sweatshirts would be considered athletic wear, regardless of what institution they may promote. Likewise, items such as caps, shirts, tennis shoes, and jeans are also distinguishable as athletic wear. Unlike the appellants in Nguyen, Tucker was not convicted of possessing various classes of items for which he was not indicted. Rather, he was charged with and convicted of possessing only one class of stolen property — athletic apparel.

¶ 32. Specifically, Tucker was indicted for receiving or possessing athletic wear, which was stolen from Foot Gear and exceeded a value of over $500, and that is exactly what he was convicted of. It is of no instance that the indictment did not list each individual cap, sweatshirt, pair of tennis shoes, etc. The purpose of an indictment is “to inform the defendant with some measure of certainty as to the nature of the charges brought against him so that he may have a reasonable opportunity to prepare an effective defense.” Moses, 795 So.2d at 571(¶ 13). In our judgment, the indictment was sufficient to inform Tucker as to the charges he was facing such that he had a fair opportunity to prepare a defense. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.

IV. WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN GRANTING AND REFUSING CERTAIN JURY INSTRUCTIONS.

¶ 33. Tucker argues that he was refused an instruction that allowed him the opportunity to present his theory of the case. In addition, Tucker contends that the instructions received by the jury were “hopelessly confusing and conflicting.” Jury instructions are to be given or refused based upon the following guidelines:

Jury instructions are to be read together and taken as a whole with no one instruction taken out of context. A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.

Goff v. State, 14 So.3d 625, 663 (¶ 163) (Miss.2009) (citation omitted). Tucker argues that the State presented an elements instruction which did not specify which items it alleged Tucker possessed, and the State failed to prove the items came from Foot Gear or exceeded $500. We disagree. Submitted jury instruction S-2 states:

The [c]ourt instructs the [j]ury that if you find from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable [doubt] that the Defendant, Anthony Tucker, alone or with another or others, did on or about October 18, 2005, unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously, possess athletic apparel which had been stolen from Footgear, [sic] having a total value in excess of $500.00, and the Defendant knew or should have known at the time of possessing said property -that it was stolen, then you shall find the Defendant guilty as charged of Possession of Stolen Property. If the State has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall find the Defendant not guilty.

¶ 34. There was ample evidence presented at trial that established the athletic apparel, which was discovered in the shed, came from Foot Gear and exceeded a value of $500. Testimony established that the items correlated to Foot Gear’s inventory records, and the approximate value of the various items was presented to the jury. Additionally, testimony established that there were pairs of shoes found at the scene that matched shoe boxes that were left behind at the store. As there was an evidentiary foundation, the trial court did not err in submitting jury instruction S-2.

¶ 35. Next, Tucker contends that the trial judge committed an error by submitting jury instruction S-3 because it failed to accurately define the crime, and there was no evidence that Tucker aided, counseled, or encouraged Gibbs in the commission of the crime of possession of stolen property. Jury instruction S-3 states the following:

The [c]ourt instructs the [j]ury that under the laws of the State of Mississippi anyone who aids, assists, or encourages in the commission of a crime is deemed a principal in that crime and is just as responsible as if he had committed the whole act with his own hand. Therefore, if you find from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant, Anthony Tucker, did aid, assist, or encourage another or others in the commission of the crime of possession of stolen property, then the Defendant was a principal to the possession of stolen property and is criminally responsible for that crime.

1136. Jury instruction S-3 is an accurate statement of law. It is well settled that “any person who is present at the commission of a criminal offense and aids, counsels, or encourages another in the commission of that offense is an ‘aider and abettor’ and is equally guilty with the principal offender.” Swinford v. State, 653 So.2d 912, 915 (Miss.1995) (citation omitted). In Swinford, the supreme court elaborated further, and stated:

Aiding and abetting is defined to be “the offense committed by those persons who, although not the direct perpetrators of a crime, are yet present at its commission, doing some act to render aid to the actual perpetrator....” And[,] such aiding and abetting may be manifested by acts, words, signs, motions, or any conduct which unmistakably evinces a design to encourage, incite or approve of the crime, or even by being present, with the intention of giving assistance, if necessary, though such assistance may not be called into requisition.

Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

¶ 37. The record is replete with evidence to support a conclusion that Tucker had conduct which evinced a design to encourage or approve of the crime. Whether he lived in the home where a plethora of stolen items were strewn about, or whether he lived in the shed and had received the items from two guys in a white van, there was a sufficient evidentia-ry foundation presented such that the instruction could be given to the jury. We find no error in the trial judge’s decision to submit jury instruction S-3.

¶ 38. Next, Tucker argues that the trial judge improperly denied jury instructions D-2A and D-3. Instruction D-2A states in relevant part: “If the State fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property in question was not given to Anthony Tucker as a gift and that he knew or had reasonable grounds to believe it was stolen then you should find the Defendant not guilty.” And, instruction D-3 states: “The [c]ourt instructs that if the accused, Anthony Tucker, was at the time of the offense ignorant to the fact the property in question was stolen[,] then Anthony Tucker can not be found guilty of the offense of [Receiving or [possession [sic][s]tolen [property.”

¶ 39. It is obvious these instructions address the State’s burden to prove that Tucker knew or had reason to know that the items were stolen. As shown in jury instruction S-2 supra, other instructions informed the jury of the State’s burden and what it had to prove to justify a guilty verdict. When read as a whole, the proffered jury instructions were repetitious. Therefore, we find the trial judge did not err in refusing instructions D-2A and D-3.

¶ 40. Finally, Tucker contends that it was error to grant instruction S — 4, which states:

The [cjourt instructs the (j]ury that possession as used in these instructions does not mean exclusive possession, or exclusive dominion and control. Two or more people maybe [sic] in possession of the same property at the same time if that property is subject to their dominion and control, no matter how fleeting the possession, or how slight the dominion and control.

Tucker argues that this instruction is in conflict with instruction D-l, which was given; and therefore, Tucker contends that this caused the jury instructions, when read as a whole, to be confusing to the jury. It appears that Tucker argues that instruction D-l describes possession over individual items rather than any, or all, of the property stolen from Foot Gear. Even a cursory reading of the two instructions reveals that this argument is flawed.

¶ 41. Instruction D-l states: “The [c]ourt instructs the jury that to constitute possession, there must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that Anthony Tucker exercised custody or control of the particular property and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it.” When read as a whole, it is clear that the “particular property” described in instruction D-l is the same “property” described in jury instruction S-2 supra, which was described as athletic apparel stolen from Foot Gear exceeding a value of $500.

f 42. Tucker also takes issue with the instruction’s wording related to the duration of possession: specifically, the words “fleeting” and “slight.” This argument is unpersuasive. The supreme court has held that: “In our state to be found guilty of receiving stolen property[,] the [S]tate must prove that the accused had control or dominion over the custody of the goods. [But,] [t]his dominion or control, however, may be brief and temporary.” Lewis v. State, 573 So.2d 713, 714 (Miss.1990) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added). The jury instructions accurately reflected the law and clearly informed the jury, and when read as a whole, the instructions were not conflicting or confusing. Therefore, this issue is without merit.

V. WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO SUSTAIN A DEFENSE OBJECTION DURING THE STATE’S CLOSING ARGUMENT.

¶ 43. As discussed during its closing argument, counsel for the State speculated that Foot Gear had been burglarized by more than one individual, using the term “they” several times. The State also referred to the burglary as an “ex-eon” job. The defense objected arguing that the State had not presented any evidence as to whom “they” may have been, and the defense also objected to any reference to an “ex-con job” arguing that the State was trying to persuade the jury that Tucker had committed the burglary. The trial judge overruled the objection as to the statements relating to the burglary and sustained the objection as to the “ex-con” statements. The judge explained that the jury was allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented. The trial judge was correct.

¶ 44. The supreme court has stated that:

Attorneys are allowed a wide latitude in arguing their cases to the jury. However, prosecutors are not permitted to use tactics which are inflammatory, highly prejudicial, or reasonably calculated to unduly influence the jury. The standard of review that appellate courts must apply to lawyer misconduct during opening statements or closing arguments is whether the natural and probable effect of the improper argument is to create unjust prejudice against the accused so as to result in a decision influenced by the prejudice so created. In closing argument, that wide latitude extends not only to the facts presented in evidence, but also to deduction and conclusions he may reasonably draw therefrom, and the application of the law to the facts. However, arguing statements of fact which are not in evidence or necessarily inferable from facts in evidence is error when those statements are prejudicial.

Dampier v. State, 978 So.2d 221, 235-86(¶ 39) (Miss.2008) (internal citations and quotations omitted). This Court must first determine whether the individual comments constituted “improper argument,” and if so, we must then determine whether the “improper argument” created “unjust prejudice.” Id. at 236(¶ 40) (citation omitted). As illustrated above, Tucker’s sole defense was ignorance that the items were stolen. With that defense in mind, we consider the disputed statement and determine whether it was improper:

Ladies and gentlemen, does this look like a professional person’s job or like a bunch of 20 year olds going and smashing the window and just grabbing some stuff and running? You know what it looks like. You can tell what it looks like. And, ladies and gentlemen, if you believe anything that Ms. Gibbs said, that stuff appeared at her house the very next morning[,] ... you tell me who you think knew stuff was stolen at that house[.]

¶ 45. We find that the statement was not an improper argument, and it was reasonable for the State to theorize about how the items were stolen and present that theory in an effort to refute Tucker’s claimed ignorance. The nature of the burglary and the experience of those who committed it were inferable from the evidence presented. Furthermore, we find that the statements did not result in unjust prejudice to Tucker given that the trial judge distinctly stated that Tucker was not on trial for burglary. There can be no doubt that the jury was aware that they were not being asked to determine whether Tucker committed the burglary. Rather, the record indicates that they would have been aware that they were to determine whether Tucker knew or should have known that the numerous items found in the shed and house where he was living were stolen.

¶ 46. Considering the wide latitude given to an attorney when arguing his or her ease to a jury and applying the two-part standard set forth in Dampier, we find the State’s argument was not out of bounds for a closing argument, so there is no plain error to be found. Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, this issue is without merit.

VI. WHETHER TUCKER WAS DEPRIVED OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

¶47. Tucker contends that his trial counsel was deficient and committed numerous errors throughout the trial. Tucker asserts six reasons that his defense counsel’s performance should be considered ineffective: (1) counsel failed to make objections as the State extracted hearsay testimony from State witnesses related to the anonymous tip that Tucker had broken into Foot Gear and was hiding the stolen merchandise in a house and yellow shed located at 1893 Matthews Gin Road; (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to prevent the State from eliciting testimony that he was on parole; (3) counsel should not have questioned Hancock about other bad acts allegedly committed by Tucker, namely complaints, in the form of signed affidavits, by Tucker’s ex-wife alleging that Tucker threatened and harassed her; (4) counsel failed to object to the indictment as it was insufficient to allege what items Tucker was supposed to have constructively possessed; (5) counsel submitted an incomplete jury instruction on constructive possession, and the jury instructions were confusing and contradictory; and (6) counsel failed to request the jury be admonished to disregard statements made by the State during closing arguments referring to “ex-cons” and “they” committing the burglary, as well as not requesting a mistrial.

¶ 48. The case of Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 841 (Miss.1983), established that a convicted criminal is permitted to raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, even if the matter has not been presented to the trial court. When the issue is raised, this Court’s review is strictly limited to a review of the appellate record. Id. We may determine the merits of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel only when the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, or the parties have stipulated that the record is adequate such that further information concerning the findings of fact by a trial judge are not needed for appellate review. Id. If these two conditions are not met, this Court should review the other issues in the case, and if we otherwise affirm the conviction, we should do so without prejudice so the defendant may raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel through appropriate post-conviction-proceedings. Id.

¶ 49. After reviewing the record, we do not find that the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, and the parties have not stipulated that the record is adequate such that we can adequately weigh the trial judge’s findings of fact. Therefore, we affirm Tucker’s conviction without prejudice so as to allow him to further supplement the record with additional evidence and raise his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim through appropriate post-conviction-proceedings.

VII. WHETHER CUMULATIVE ERRORS DEMAND A NEW TRIAL.

¶ 50. “This court may reverse a conviction and sentence based upon the cumulative effect of errors that independently would not require reversal.... However, where there was no reversible error in any part, so there is no reversible error to the whole.” Michael v. State, 918 So.2d 798, 806(¶ 18) (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (citing McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 136 (Miss.1987)). Tucker has failed to establish the existence of errors upon which a claim of cumulative effect can be grounded. Therefore, this issue is without merit.

¶ 51. Finding no reversible error in the trial below, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 52. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY OF CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY AND SENTENCE AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER OF TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE, PROBATION, OR EARLY RELEASE, AND TO PAY A FINE OF $10,000 UPON RELEASE FROM CONFINEMENT, IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO CLAY COUNTY.

KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.

      . At the time of the burglary, Foot Gear in West Point, Mississippi was owned by Haresh Khiatani.

      . The shoe boxes left behind later proved helpful in verifying that the merchandise recovered was the same that was stolen from Foot Gear. Some of the shoes recovered bore the same model number as its matching shoe box, which the thieves left at the store.

      . Testimony was given that established that the shed did not have plumbing or running water.

      . Tucker has made no assertion that he purchased the items, and it was established at trial that he did not have a job. Also, Chris-tann testified that her husband and another relative gave Tucker clothing because Tucker had so few possessions.

      . The objection in reference to the "ex-con” statement was sustained.

      . Formerly Rule 2.05 of Uniform Rules of Circuit Court Practice.

      . In Nguyen, the supreme court discussed previous cases wherein the property description in an indictment was found to be sufficient. The supreme court stated:
      This Court summarized from earlier cases ... that "a diamond ring,” "one mule and one horse,” and "one suit of clothes” have been a sufficient description of the property at issue, even though a more particular description of each might have been possible. A description of a "neat calf” has been found sufficient. A description of "110 pounds of dairy feed,” along with the value of the feed has been found sufficient. An indictment alleging the theft of "two Chevrolet motors (less head) and one Plymouth Motor (with head)” has been found sufficient. A description of "six sacks of ammonium nitrate” has also been found sufficient.

        Nguyen, 761 So.2d at 876(¶ 11) (internal citations omitted).

      . There were some non-clothing items taken from the house, but they were returned when it was determined that the items did not belong to Foot Gear.