Boyd v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-01816-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01816-COA ; 2010-KA-01816-COA ; 2010-CT-01816-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-30-2013 Opinion Author: Waller, C.J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-22-2012 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of marijuana - URCCC 7.09 - Amendment of indictment - Sentence as subsequent offender - Unfair surprise Judge(s) Concurring: Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, King and Coleman, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Dickinson, P.J., Concurs in Part and in Result Without Separate Written Opinion Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Pierce, J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Concurs in Result Only: Randolph, P.J., Concurs in Result Only Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-07-2010 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: CONVICTED OF THE SALE OF MARIJUANA, A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, WITHIN ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FEET OF A BUILDING OR OUTBUILDING OF CANTON ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL IN MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, OR WITHIN ONE THOUSAND FEET OF THE REAL PROPERTY OF CANTON ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL, AS A SUBSEQUENT DRUG OFFENDER, AND SENTENCED TO ONE HUNDRED TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, TO BE RELEASED AFTER SIXTY YEARS, AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION District Attorney: Michael Guest Case Number: 2010-0358 |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court found no error that would warrant reversal of Boyd’s conviction; therefore, it affirmed in part the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the trial court. It further found that Boyd did not receive timely or sufficient notice of the State’s intent to amend his indictment; therefore, that amendment resulted in unfair surprise. The original Court of Appeals opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO77387.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Dwayne Boyd |
ALI MUHAMMAD SHAMSIDDEEN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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 marijuana - URCCC 7.09 - Amendment of indictment - Sentence as subsequent offender - Unfair surprise |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dwayne Boyd was convicted of the sale of marijuana, greater than thirty grams but less than one kilogram, within 1,500 feet of a school or within 1,000 feet of the real property of a school. Boyd was sentenced, as a subsequent drug offender, to 120 years, with sixty years to serve and five years of supervised post-release supervision. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | URCCC 7.09 provides that amendments to indictments are permissible as long as the defendant is not unfairly surprised and has reasonable notice for preparation of a defense. Boyd was not informed through his indictment that the State intended to seek to sentence him as a subsequent offender. The State asserts that Boyd was given notice because he was told during pretrial proceedings on the morning of trial that, if a conviction was obtained, the State would seek to sentence him as a subsequent offender. Such “notice” is not sufficient. The verbal notice that was given by the State did not sufficiently inform Boyd what his sentence might be if he were found to be a subsequent offender. Although the State told the trial court that it would seek “to double up to 80 years” because he was a subsequent offender, Boyd actually was sentenced to a total of 120 years. Therefore, this amendment resulted in unfair surprise, and the case is remanded for resentencing. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
