Alexander v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00887-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-15-2004 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of controlled substance - Right to speedy trial - Amendment of indictment - Other crimes’ evidence - Excessive sentence Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-28-2003 Appealed from: Lamar County Circuit Court Judge: R.I. Prichard, III Disposition: SALE OR TRANSFER OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - 40 YEARS, 30 YEARS TO SERVE, 10 YEARS SUSPENDED, PLACED ON POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION FOR 5 YEARS, AND A FINE OF $10,000 District Attorney: Claiborne McDonald Case Number: 2002K-227P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Eddie Alexander |
WILLIAM L. DUCKER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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 controlled substance - Right to speedy trial - Amendment of indictment - Other crimes’ evidence - Excessive sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eddie Alexander was convicted of the sale of a controlled substance and sentenced to forty years, with ten years suspended. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Right to speedy trial Alexander argues that the court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss the case because his right to a speedy trial was violated. Factors the court must consider include length of delay, reason for delay, whether defendant asserted his right, and whether defendant was prejudiced. Here, twenty-five months elapsed between the arrest and the trial which is presumptively prejudicial. The reason for the delay in indicting Alexander was due to the hospitalization and year-long recuperation period for a Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics Agent following a motor vehicle accident. Because the State could have used the three other officers who were present during the undercover operation to present the case to the grand jury, the fifteen month delay is attributed to the State. Alexander did not file a motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial until just days before the case was set for trial. In addition, he waived his right to a speedy trial when he signed an “Order Continuing and Pre-Setting Trial” and an “Acknowledgment of Right to be Arraigned.” Also, he can not show actual prejudice. Given these factors, Alexander’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. Issue 2: Amendment of indictment Alexander argues that the court erred when it granted the State's motion to amend the indictment to add that he was a second and subsequent offender, and to change the date of the offense. A change in the indictment is permissible if it does not materially alter facts which are the essence of the offense on the face of the indictment as it originally stood or materially alter a defense to the indictment as it originally stood so as to prejudice the defendant's case. Amending the date of the alleged offense is a change of form only where time is not an essential element or factor in the indictment. Because Alexander had the same defenses available to him regardless of his status as a subsequent offender and regardless of the date, the amendments were of form rather than substance. Issue 3: Other crimes’ evidence Alexander argues that the court erred in not granting a mistrial because a witness for the State unfairly introduced evidence of other crimes. When the defense attorney inquires into a subject on cross-examination of the State's witnesses, the prosecutor on rebuttal is unquestionably entitled to elaborate on the matter. Here, Alexander’s counsel asked numerous questions regarding the statements. In doing so, Alexander opened the door for questions on re-direct regarding the statement. Issue 4: Excessive sentence Alexander argues that a sentence of forty years, with ten years suspended was excessive for the sale of .10 grams of cocaine. The record shows that Alexander’s prior drug offenses qualified him as a habitual offender. As all three convictions could be used to enhance Alexander’s punishment he could have received a maximum sentence of sixty years, and as such the judge was well within his statutory authority to sentence Alexander to thirty years. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
