Wright v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00535-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-06-2004 Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine & Possession of cocaine - Defective indictment - Continuance - Habitual offender status - Cruel and unusual punishment Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-15-2001 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Elzy Smith, Jr. Disposition: COUNT I - SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, COCAINE - SENTENCED TO 60 YEARS WITHOUT PROBATION OR PAROLE. COUNT II - POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, COCAINE (BETWEEN 2 AND 10 GRAMS) - SENTENCED TO 32 YEARS WITHOUT PROBATION OR PAROLE. THE SENTENCE IMPOSED SHALL BE CONSECUTIVE TO AND SHALL COMMENCE AT THE TERMINATION OF THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IN COUNT I. District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2000-0074 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Johnny Wright a/k/a "Pig" a/k/a Johnnie Wright |
CYNTHIA ANN STEWART |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS |
|
|
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 & Possession of cocaine - Defective indictment - Continuance - Habitual offender status - Cruel and unusual punishment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Johnny Wright was convicted of one count of the sale of cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine. He was sentenced to sixty years on the sale charge and thirty-two years on the possession charge. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Wright argues that the indictment invalid, because there is no basis to determine, on the face of the indictment, whether the cocaine mentioned is, or is not, the same quantity of illegal drug. It is not necessary for an indictment to so specifically identify the particular quantity of narcotic by language in the indictment that it could, by those descriptive terms and nothing else, be distinguished from any other quantity of the same type of narcotic. Therefore, his contention is without merit. Issue 2: Continuance Wright argues that the court erred in denying a continuance to allow for sufficient time to allow him to retain an expert witness to investigate and possibly provide information helpful in impeaching the probative value of the crime lab employee’s testimony. An aggrieved party must timely raise the issue with the trial court when the problem first presents itself. After receiving a large quantity of materials that the trial court had ordered to be furnished in lieu of granting Wright’s continuance motion, Wright appeared on the morning of trial and announced that he was ready for trial. Therefore, he waived his right to complain. Issue 3: Habitual offender status Wright argues that he was improperly sentenced as a habitual offender because the State’s proof on the issue was insufficient as a matter of law. The judgments supporting the status are contained in the official exhibit folder of the record. Therefore, his contention is without merit. Issue 4: Cruel and unusual punishment Wright argues that his sentence amounts to a life sentence and is excessive. The record, including proof of Wright’s prior criminal convictions, indicated a persistent effort on Wright’s part to traffic in illegal narcotics. The sentence is not so unreasonably harsh as to invoke constitutional considerations of cruel and unusual punishment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
