Wilson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-KA-00889-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-KA-00889-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-20-2012 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Grand larceny - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Roberts, J., Specially Concurs With Separate Written Opinion, Joined by Fair, J.; Lee, C.J., Maxwell and Russell, JJ., Join In Part. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-20-2011 Appealed from: Warren County Circuit Court Judge: Isadore Patrick Disposition: CONVICTED OF GRAND LARCENY AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION, WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED, FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, AND A FINE OF $2,500 Case Number: 08,0341CRP2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Timothy Allen Wilson a/k/a Timothy Wilson |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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: | Grand larceny - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Timothy Wilson was convicted of grand larceny and sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years, with five years suspended, five years to serve, and five years of post-release supervision. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Wilson argues that the State did not meet its burden of proving conclusively who owned the stolen property because the proof of ownership offered by the State was not specific enough. As a general rule of law in a prosecution for larceny, an allegation of the ownership of stolen goods is supported by proof of any legal interest or special property in the goods. At trial, a photograph of Cook’s truck was entered into evidence. The certificate of title for Cook’s truck was also entered into evidence, which showed “Willam S. Cook” owned the truck. While Cook individually owned the truck, he had left it within the fence of the business over the weekend. Regardless of whether Cook or Cook Tractor had title ownership of the truck, Wilson did not have the right to take the truck. There was no defense that could have been mounted against Cook Tractor that could not have been mounted against Cook. Further, even if ownership of the truck was insufficiently proven, the remaining stolen equipment’s value (the $1,600 trailer, the $9,800 mower, and the $4,500 mower) totals well over $500, thereby proving the required elements of grand larceny without including the value of the truck. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
