Taylor v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CT-00669-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-00669-COA ; 2009-KA-00669-COA ; 2009-CT-00669-SCT ; 2009-CT-00669-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-01-2013 Opinion Author: Randolph, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-11-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of controlled substance in prison facility - Habitual offender status - Sex-crime conviction - Section 99-19-83 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Lamar, Pierce and Coleman, JJ. Dissenting Author : Chandler, J. Dissent Joined By : Dickinson, P.J., Kitchens and King, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-20-2009 Appealed from: Leflore County Circuit Court Judge: W. Ashely Hines Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION District Attorney: Willie Dewayne Richardson Case Number: 2007-0328 |
|
| Note: | The original Court of Appeals opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO66719.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Carlos Taylor |
OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER: ERIN ELIZABETH PRIDGEN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER |
|
|
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: | Possession of controlled substance in prison facility - Habitual offender status - Sex-crime conviction - Section 99-19-83 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Carlos Taylor was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in a prison facility. Taylor was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment without parole. Taylor filed two post-trial motions: a “Motion for a New Trial or, in the Alternative, Judgment of Acquittal Notwithstanding the Verdict,” and a separate “Motion to Reduce Mandated Sentence.” The court denied both motions, and Taylor appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed Taylor’s sentence. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Taylor argued that “[t]he trial court erred in sentencing Taylor as a habitual offender under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-83. During the sentencing hearing, the prosecution presented evidence that Taylor was previously convicted of sex with an underage child . . . .” Taylor argued that “[t]here is absolutely no implication that a violent act took place during the commission of this felony.” The State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant meets the requirements for sentencing as a habitual offender. All that is required is that the accused be properly indicted as a habitual offender, that the prosecution prove the prior offenses by competent evidence, and that the defendant be given a reasonable opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s proof. In this case, each of these requirements was satisfied. Taylor was indicted as a habitual offender. The sentencing orders presented by the State were competent evidence of Taylor’s separate felony convictions for sale of marijuana and sexual intercourse with a child under age. Taylor had a reasonable opportunity to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the State at the sentencing hearing, but he declined to do so. The trial court did not err by concluding that Taylor’s sex-crime conviction was a crime of violence. Sexual intercourse between an underage child and an adult clearly is a crime of violence, for sexual intercourse cannot occur without the exertion of some degree of physical force, even if it entails no pain or bodily harm and leaves no mark. The same is true for any other sex-crime victim who lacks the capacity to consent. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Taylor under section 99-19-83. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
