Mims v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00613-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-00613-COA ; 2002-CT-00613-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-29-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of controlled substance - Right to speedy trial - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J. Concurs in Result Only: Southwick, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-03-2002 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: SALE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, COCAINE AND SENTENCE OF THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIFTEEN YEARS SUSPENDED AND FINE OF $25,000. District Attorney: C. Grant Hedgepeth Case Number: 2001-210-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Michael Mims |
DAN W. DUGGAN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael Mims was convicted of sale of a controlled substance. He was sentenced to thirty years, with fifteen years suspended. Mims appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Right to speedy trial Mims argues that the court erred in not dismissing his case at the pretrial hearing because his right to a speedy trial had been violated. Factors the court must consider in determining whether a defendant had been deprived of his right to a speedy trial include length of delay, reason for the delay, defendant's assertion of his right, and any resulting prejudice. The length of delay in this case was well over eight months which is presumptively prejudicial. Mims and the State agreed to a continuance of over a month. In addition, the docket was congested. Therefore, this factor counts lightly against the State. Mims did not file a motion demanding a speedy trial but only filed a motion to dismiss prior to trial. Therefore, this factor weighs against Mims. Because Mims fails to provide specific evidence concerning anxiety he suffered or any specific injury to his ability to prepare a defense, this factor weighs in favor of the State. Given these factors, Mims' constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. With regard to his statutory right to a speedy trial, Mims failed to raise this issue within 270 days of his arraignment and, therefore, acquiesced to the delay. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Mims argues that the evidence is insufficient, because of the inconsistencies in the evidence. The jury in this case was allowed to hear an audiotape of Mims selling crack cocaine to a confidential informant. A police officer testified that he prepared the confidential informants for the buy, he searched both informants and the car they were driving, he placed the body wire on the informants, he listened to the transaction as it occurred, and he received the crack directly after the buy. An expert testified that the substance consisted of 1.22 grams of crack cocaine. This was sufficient evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
