Wilson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00814-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00814-SCT ; 2003-KA-00814-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-27-2004 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Peremptory challenges - Voir dire - Hearsay - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-26-2003 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: CONVICTED OF SALE OF COCAINE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND FINE OF $5,000. District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 057-02 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Charles Edward Wilson |
JAMES A. WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Sale of cocaine - Peremptory challenges - Voir dire - Hearsay - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charles Edward was convicted of sale of cocaine and was sentenced to serve twenty-five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Peremptory challenges Wilson argues that the court erred in accepting the State's racially-neutral reasons for striking prospective black jurors. The reasons given were that the juror indicated her son may have been unfairly prosecuted, the juror was the second cousin of the chief of police, the juror had a family member or close friend convicted of the sale of cocaine, the juror attended the same church as Wilson's mother, and the juror had a family member or close friend convicted of embezzlement. These reasons are all sufficiently race neutral. Issue 2: Voir dire Wilson argues that the State's actions during voir dire denied him a fair trial. While prosecuting attorneys must avoid questions seeking a promise or commitment from the jury to convict if the State proved certain facts, a party waives any and all claims regarding the composition of his jury if he fails to raise an objection before the jury is sworn. As Wilson never objected to the State's questions, this issue is waived. Issue 3: Hearsay Wilson argues that since the confidential informant did not testify at trial, then the agents could not testify as to anything the confidential informant said during the buy. The appellant must object with specificity in order to preserve an error for appeal. Two of Wilson's objections were general objections and the other one was not specific as to a hearsay violation. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Wilson argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Wilson merely gives blanket reasons as to why his counsel was ineffective. Wilson does not show that his counsel's trial strategies were outside the range of professionally competent assistance nor does he show that any deficiency on the part of his trial counsel resulted in any prejudice to his case. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence Wilson argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The agent testified that it was Wilson who handed him the cocaine in exchange for one hundred dollars. Audio and video tapes of the transaction were admitted into evidence for the jury to hear and see. This was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
