Hawkins v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-01204-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-01204-COA ; 2004-CT-01204-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-09-2008 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Attempted burglary of automobile - Defective indictment - Abandonment instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Disproportionate sentence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberst, and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-13-2004 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Al Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED BURGLARY OF AN AUTOMOBILE AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 2004-021-CR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DARYL HAWKINS |
GEORGE T. HOLMES |
|
|
| 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: | Attempted burglary of automobile - Defective indictment - Abandonment instruction - Sufficiency of evidence - Disproportionate sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Daryl Hawkins was convicted of attempted burglary of an automobile and sentenced as a habitual offender to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Hawkins argues that the indictment is defective because it failed to state necessary elements of the offense of attempted burglary, namely that he committed an overt act in furtherance of the attempted burglary and that he failed to consummate its commission. As clearly evidenced by the indictment, Hawkins was on notice that he was being indicted for attempting to break into an automobile by “breaking out a window.” In order to convict Hawkins of attempted burglary, the State was required to show that he “attempted to” break and enter the Nissan Sentra but either failed or was prevented from doing so. In this case, the evidence clearly shows that Hawkins possessed the requisite intent to commit the crime of burglary. The indictment was sufficient to put Hawkins on notice that he was being charged with attempted burglary and specifically set forth the conduct that constituted the attempt. In addition, the intent to commit a crime plus any slight act toward its consummation is sufficient in law to constitute the commission of an attempted crime. Issue 2: Abandonment instruction Hawkins argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his request for his abandonment jury instruction. In order for an abandonment instruction to be warranted a defendant must show that he voluntarily abandoned his intent and did not have his intent frustrated by the resistance of the victim or the intervention of a third party. There is nothing in the record that supports Hawkins’s contention that he abandoned his attempt to burglarize the Nissan Sentra. By contrast, Hawkins testified that he did not approach the Nissan Sentra at all. Thus, the trial judge committed no error in refusing to allow the abandonment instruction, as it is clear that it was not supported by the evidence. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Reasonable, fair-minded jurors could have found Hawkins guilty of attempted burglary of an automobile, as the evidence shows that Hawkins approached a vehicle prior to approaching the Nissan Sentra; he then made his way to the Nissan Sentra, looked inside, and broke its window. Issue 4: Disproportionate sentence Hawkins argues that his sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate to the crime of attempted burglary of an automobile. There is no merit to this issue, as Hawkins’s sentence was within the statutory limits. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
