Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-01104-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CP-01104-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-20-2007 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine - Unconstitutional sentence - Habitual offender status Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-17-2005 Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr. Disposition: TRIAL COURT DENIED MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF. Case Number: 2003-0141-CV1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | LEE ANDRE WILLIAMS |
LEE ANDRE WILLIAMS (PRO SE) |
||
| 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: | Possession of cocaine - Unconstitutional sentence - Habitual offender status |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lee Andre Williams was convicted of possession of less than one-tenth gram of cocaine. He was sentenced to life as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Unconstitutional sentence Williams argues that his sentence of life is unconstitutional because it is out of proportion with the statutory sentence for the crime for which he was convicted. However, Williams fails to mention that he was given a life sentence because he was a habitual offender and not based on the possession conviction alone. While Williams’ original indictment did not charge him as a habitual offender, indictments may be amended to charge a defendant as a habitual offender or to elevate the level of the offense where the offense is one which is subject to enhanced punishment for subsequent offenses and the amendment is to assert prior offenses justifying such enhancement. Williams has not shown how he was surprised by the amendment or how his ability to prepare a defense was affected by the amendment. In fact, the record shows that Williams was warned before his jury trial that the indictment would be amended. Issue 2: Habitual offender status Williams argues that the Mississippi habitual offender enhancement scheme violates U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings which require a jury to determine habitual offender status. However, each of the cited cases notes that prior convictions are a recognized exception to the requirement of jury determination of enhancing sentencing factors. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
