Finn v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-00393-COA
Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-00393-COA ; 2006-CT-00393-SCT ; 2006-CT-00393-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-26-2007
Opinion Author: KING, C.J.
Holding: Reversed and Rendered

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Illegal sentence - Measurement units for conviction - Section 41-29-313
Judge(s) Concurring: MYERS, P.J., CHANDLER, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Dissenting Author : IRVING, J.
Dissent Joined By : LEE, P.J., GRIFFIS AND BARNES, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-07-2006
Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Paul S. Funderburk
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
Case Number: CV05-136(PF)L

Note: This opinion was reversed and the judgment of the circuit court reinstated and affirmed by the Supreme Court on 4/10/2008. See the SCT opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO47265.pdf

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: STEVEN FINN




JOHN CARL HELMERT



 

Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY  

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: Post-conviction relief - Illegal sentence - Measurement units for conviction - Section 41-29-313

Summary of the Facts: Steven Finn pled guilty to possession of pseudoephedrine and was sentenced to five years with three years suspended. Finn filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. Finn appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Finn argues that the court erred in dismissing his post-conviction relief motion because he is serving an illegal sentence. Finn was arrested while in possession of one hundred eighty unaltered tablets of pseudoephedrine. After Finn’s arrest, the Tupelo Crime Lab analyzed the drugs and concluded that one hundred twenty tablets of the pseudoephedrine weighed 18.05 grams and the remaining sixty tablets of the pseudoephedrine weighed 37.52 grams. The total weight of the drugs was 55.57 grams. Finn’s possession of one hundred eighty tablets falls below Section 41-29-313 (2)(c)(i)’s prohibition of possessing two hundred fifty dosage units but above the prohibition of possessing fifteen grams in weight. The State charged Finn with possession of greater than fifty –five grams. The State argues that it is within the discretion of the prosecutors as to whether the State will use dosage units or weight in grams in prosecuting defendants who unlawfully possess pseudoephedrine. The legislature in section 41-29-313 has established that dosage units are to be considered the standard form of measuring unlawful possession of pseudoephedrine or ephedrine. The weight of the drug is considered a default measurement for those cases where the drug is not found in a “dosage unit” form. Section 41-29-313 does not provide any discretionary privileges to prosecutors concerning the unit of measurement that should be used in prosecuting these drug cases. Thus, Finn has sufficiently proved that he is entitled to post-conviction relief.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court