Melton v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00008-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-06-2007 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Methamphetamine - Probable cause for search - Voluntariness of consent Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-02-2005 Appealed from: LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I POSSESSION OF PRECURSOR CHEMICALS WITH INTENT TO MANUFACTURE METHAMPHETAMINE AND SENTENCE OF THIRTY YEARS; COUNT II UNLAWFUL MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETAMINE AND SENTENCE OF THIRTY YEARS; AND COUNT III POSSESSION OF LESS THAN ONE TENTH OF A GRAM OF METHAMPHETAMINE, AND SENTENCE OF FOUR YEARS ALL TO RUN CONCURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH THE FIRST TWENTY YEARS TO SERVE AND FIVE YEARS OF REPORTING SUPERVISED POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AND FIVE YEARS OF NON-REPORTING/UNSUPERVISED POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO EACH OTHER, FINE OF $75,000 AND RESTITUTION OF $300 District Attorney: DEE BATES Case Number: 05-253-LS |
|
| Note: | The conviction is Affirmed, but the Sentencing Order is Remanded. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DANNY MELTON |
LOUIS IVAN BURGHARD |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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: | Methamphetamine - Probable cause for search - Voluntariness of consent |
| Summary of the Facts: | Danny Melton was convicted for multiple crimes relating to methamphetamine. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Melton argues that he was illegally detained prior to the search of his yard, because law enforcement had no grounds for detaining him because the investigation concerned Melton’s neighbor and there was no evidence that Melton was involved in any criminal behavior with his neighbor. The deputy testified that after Melton gave permission for his yard to be searched, he became visibly worried and forbade any further access to his property including the carport, shed, and house when the deputy told him that information was received that Melton used his carport to manufacture methamphetamine. The deputy then ceased any further search, departed from Melton’s property and proceeded to obtain a search warrant based only upon the items found in Melton’s yard. A search warrant was obtained because of the items found in Melton’s yard and not based upon any previous information that Melton was involved with manufacturing methamphetamine. Under these circumstances there was no illegal detention. Melton also argues that he was coerced or intimidated into consenting to the search. Factors to consider regarding the voluntariness of the consent to search include the location of the encounter, any overt coercion, the display of weapons, experience of the defendant with the criminal justice system, and the defendant’s age. Melton was a grown adult. Melton had some level of awareness of interaction with law enforcement because of a previous encounter with the law many years ago. Melton actually ended the search demanding that the deputy obtain a search warrant. The consent was given at Melton’s home, not in seclusion with only a police presence. No weapons were drawn. The record shows that Melton initially consented to the search of his property but withdrew that consent when the suspicious items were found. Melton’s actions gave probable cause to believe that more evidence of the manufacture and use of methamphetamine was located on Melton’s property. There was adequate support for the trial judge to deny Melton’s motion to exclude the evidence. Because the sentencing order in this case contains a clerical error because four years is the maximum sentence Melton could receive on count three, the case is remanded only for correction of the sentencing order. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
