Wynn v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KP-00776-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-04-2007 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Entrapment - Sufficiency of evidence - Defective indictment - Denial of right to appeal Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-01-2006 Appealed from: OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNTS I AND II SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCED TO SIXTY YEARS ON EACH COUNT AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY, AND PAYMENT OF A $2,000,000 FINE Case Number: 2001-0266-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | FELIX WYNN A/K/A CREEP A/K/A CADILLAC |
FELIX WYNN (PRO SE) |
||
| 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: | Sale of cocaine - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Entrapment - Sufficiency of evidence - Defective indictment - Denial of right to appeal |
| Summary of the Facts: | Felix Wynn was convicted as an habitual offender on two counts of sale of cocaine. Wynn appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Wynn argues that his attorney should have requested pretrial discovery, investigated the circumstances and laws surrounding the case, and interviewed potential witnesses. Wynn also argues that his attorney’s performance was ineffective because he received an enhanced sentence. On direct appeal, the Court will reach the merits of an ineffective assistance claim only in instances where the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, or the parties stipulate that the record is adequate to allow the appellate court to make the finding without consideration of the findings of fact of the trial judge. In this case, there is no stipulation made by the parties as to the record. In addition, the record does not affirmatively show ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions. Therefore, relief on this issue is denied without prejudice to Wynn’s right to raise it in appropriate post-conviction proceedings. Issue 2: Entrapment Wynn argues that he was entrapped by the State and that the court erred in overlooking the fact that he was entrapped. Entrapment is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the defendant. As an affirmative defense, entrapment must be raised at trial; the failure to do so precludes the defendant from raising the defense on appeal. Wynn has waived the defense of entrapment due to his failure to raise the defense in the lower court. In addition, Wynn cannot make out a prima facie case of entrapment. Nothing in the record reflects excessive government involvement or inducement in Wynn’s case. Additionally, there is no evidence that Wynn lacked the predisposition to commit the criminal act of selling crack cocaine. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Wynn argues that there was no evidence to support the jury’s verdict. The evidence against Wynn consisted of two eyewitness identifications, two forensic confirmations that the substance sold was cocaine, and a video recording of the two transactions. Thus, sufficient evidence was presented to the jury such that any rational juror could have found that all of the elements of sale of cocaine were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Issue 4: Defective indictment Wynn argues that his indictment was fatally defective because he was indicted for two offenses that never occurred and his sentence was enhanced because of prior offenses which he never obtained. An amendment to an indictment to charge one as an habitual offender is not an amendment as to the substance of the crime charged, as it only affects sentencing. In addition, Wynn offers no evidence to show unfair surprise or that the amendment prejudiced his ability to defend the case. Issue 5: Denial of right to appeal Wynn appears to argue that he has been denied his right to appeal through no fault of his own. However, his brief has been filed with the Court and the issues raised are presently before the Court for consideration. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
