Robinson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-01446-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-30-2007 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of controlled substance - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-28-2006 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Charles E. Webster Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I - POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCE OF THIRTY YEARS AND FINE OF 1 MILLION DOLLARS AND $300 IN LAB FEES; COUNT II - POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCE OF EIGHT YEARS AND FINED $100,000; COUNT III - POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS AND FINE OF $6,000; COUNT IV - POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCE OF ONE YEAR AND FINE OF $1,000, AS A SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT OFFENDER ON ALL COUNTS, ALL TO BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY. SENTENCES TO BE SERVED IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR REDUCTION, SUSPENSION, PROBATION, OR PAROLE WITH THE FINES NOT TO EXCEED ONE MILLION DOLLARS AND LAB FEES IMPOSED NOT TO EXCEED $300 TOTAL. District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2006-041-CR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ROBERT LEE ROBINSON |
JOHNNIE E. WALLS, JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: 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: | Possession of controlled substance - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Robert Robinson was convicted of four counts of possession of a controlled substance as a second and subsequent offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Robinson argues that the State failed to prove that he had actual or constructive knowledge of the presence of drugs in his car and that the State did not present evidence sufficiently connecting Robinson to the drugs. He argues that he rebutted the presumption that the drugs were in his exclusive possession or control because he presented testimony attempting to establish that his nephew was the source of the drugs. With regard to contraband found in a vehicle, the owner of a vehicle is presumed to be in constructive possession. Here, the drugs were found in Robinson’s trunk and he was the owner of the car. These drugs are presumed to be in Robinson’s constructive possession unless otherwise rebutted. While Robinson’s nephew or another person could have been the source of the drugs found in Robinson’s trunk, this was a question for the jury to determine from all the evidence presented. The State presented additional evidence to the jury aside from Robinson’s proximity to the drugs for it to determine he was in constructive possession. The arresting officer testified that Robinson gave permission to search the interior of the car, but refused permission to search the trunk without a warrant. Upon searching the car, the officer retrieved a large amount of cash located in the console. A drug canine further gave a positive alert that there were drugs present in the car during the search. Thus, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Robinson did, in fact, have constructive possession of the drugs found in his car. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
