Irons v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01366-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-01366-COA ; 2002-CT-01366-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-06-2004 Opinion Author: King, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Obtaining controlled substance by fraud - Defective indictment - Judge’s comments - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: McMillin, C.J., joined by Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Lee and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-21-2002 Appealed from: Kemper County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: CHARGED WITH OBTAINING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BY FRAUD, DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED TO A TERM OF FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC WITH THREE YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF SUPERVISED PROBATION. District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 2001-CR-21 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Dana Irons |
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: | Obtaining controlled substance by fraud - Defective indictment - Judge’s comments - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dana Irons was convicted of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud. She was sentenced to five years, with three years suspended, and five years of supervised probation. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Irons argues that the court should not have allowed the trial to proceed on the amended indictment which changed the charge from an "attempt" to obtain a controlled substance by fraud to one of "obtaining" a controlled substance by fraud. Indictments may be amended as to form but not as to the substance of the offense charged. The test for determining whether the defendant is prejudiced by the amendment depends on whether a defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made. Not only did the proof of the charge in this case remain the same, but the defenses available to Irons remained the same. Issue 2: Judge’s comments Irons argues that the judge prejudicially disclosed his view of the evidence to the jury during the pharmacist’s testimony when the defense objected to a leading question to the pharmacist regarding a telephone call. Trial judges may explain their rulings on objections so long as they do not comment upon the evidence in a prejudicial manner. In this case, the judge's explanation for his ruling was not an impermissible comment on the evidence or a communication of his views. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Irons argues that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, because counsel failed to present a motion to dismiss for failure to grant a speedy trial, failed to object to comments made by the judge, and failed to object to the denial of confrontation when hearsay was introduced on a material issue. With regard to the speedy trial claim, Irons failed to present this claim to the judge which waives the issue on appeal. The fact that her attorney did not object when Irons thought he should have objected does not establish that the attorney's performance was ineffective. With regard to the final issue, introduction of an exhibit of entries made by the nurse, this exhibit was offered by her attorney and may be considered as trial strategy which negates an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Irons argues that this was a circumstantial evidence case and the contradictions between her version and the State's version do not support a guilty verdict. The evidence showed that the pharmacist received a phone call from an individual who indicated that she worked for Dr. Hensleigh and was calling in a prescription for Dana Irons. However, Dr. Hensleigh testified that Irons contacted her office requesting a refill of Lorcet and that her office denied Irons' request. This is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
