Vince v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-KA-01376-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-29-2003 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed, Reversed, Rendered and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Receiving stolen property - Prior conviction - M.R.E. 404(b) - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Enhanced punishment - UCCCR 11.03 - Sufficiency of evidence 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: 04-11-2000 Appealed from: Walthall County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: GUILTY OF RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY. SENTENCED TO 5 YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC. District Attorney: J. Daniel Smith Case Number: 99-97-B |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jerry Vince |
GLENN LOUIS WHITE |
||
| 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: | Receiving stolen property - Prior conviction - M.R.E. 404(b) - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Circumstantial evidence instruction - Enhanced punishment - UCCCR 11.03 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jerry Vince was convicted of receiving stolen property and was sentenced to five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior conviction Vince argues that the court erred in determining that Vince’s prior conviction for interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle was admissible, because he elected not to testify based on the chilling effect of the court’s erroneous ruling and that this had the effect of denying him a fundamentally fair trial. Under M.R.E. 404(b), proof of prior criminal activity, though generally not admissible if offered to persuade the jury that the defendant has a propensity for such behavior, may be admissible to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. The admissibility of Vince’s previous conviction hinged, not on whether Vince elected to testify in his own defense, but on whether the defense presented evidence from any source that tended to advance a claim that his possession of the stolen property was somehow accidental or mistaken on his part. Nothing in the issues raised in this appeal significantly challenge the court's ruling as to Rule 404(b) admissibility. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Vince argues that defense counsel’s failure to interpose a timely hearsay objection to damaging testimony is enough to demonstrate that he was denied his constitutionally guaranteed right to effective assistance of counsel. To prove his claim, he must show his attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. The statement offered by the investigating officer concerning what he learned in a conversation with the Louisiana notary public was hearsay which was damaging to the defense. However, there was a substantial body of evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the bill of sale was not genuine, even without evidence regarding the Louisiana notary public’s purported knowledge about the circumstances of its execution. Since the overall evidence of Vince’s guilt was overwhelming with or without the hearsay statements, there was not a reasonable probability that the exclusion of this evidence would have resulted in an acquittal. Issue 3: Circumstantial evidence instruction Vince argues that because the case against him is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the court erred in refusing his requested “two interpretation” instruction. Instructions of this nature are required only when all of the evidence tending to establish guilt is circumstantial. Because there was eyewitness testimony that Vince was in actual possession of the stolen equipment, the direct evidence of possession was enough to remove the necessity for a circumstantial evidence instruction or the related “two interpretation” instruction. Issue 4: Enhanced punishment Vince challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented to establish his two prior convictions. Uniform Circuit and County Court Rule 11.03 requires that the indictment must include both the principal charge and a charge of previous convictions including the nature or description of the offense constituting the previous convictions, the state or federal jurisdiction of any previous conviction, and the date of judgment. In this case, the court permitted an amendment to the indictment to assert that Vince was a habitual criminal. However, the amendment does not describe the offense with particularity and none of the dialogue on the record regarding the State’s intentions sets out with any clarity the relevant facts necessary to identify the prior convictions relied upon by the prosecution until after the sentencing hearing had begun. Because the defect in the indictment was so fundamental, the matter is noted as plain error and Vince’s sentence insofar as he was sentenced as a habitual offender is reversed. In addition, the State failed to carry its burden of proof to show Vince’s requisite prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt, because the NCIC’s compilation of Vince’s criminal history does not appear as one of the exhibits nor is it listed as an exhibit in the official transcript prepared by the court reporter. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence Vince argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict because of the unsatisfactory nature of the State’s proof of guilty knowledge on his part. The sufficiency of the evidence has already been answered in the discussion of the need for a circumstantial evidence instruction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
