Davis v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-KA-01772-COA
Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-01772-COA ; 2006-CT-01772-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-25-2008
Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of marijuana & Possession of cocaine - Continuance - Exclusion of testimony - URCCC 9.04(I) - M.R.E. 801 - M.R.E. 802 - Sufficiency of evidence - Habitual offender status
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: 05-08-2006
Appealed from: SHARKEY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Isadore Patrick
Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA MORE THAN 30 GRAMS LESS THAN 250 GRAMS AND SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER AND FINED $3,000; CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF COCAINE MORE THAN 10 GRAMS LESS THAN 30 GRAMS AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FOUR YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER AND FINED $500,000, WITH THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY.
District Attorney: G. Gilmore Martin
Case Number: 3076

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: KEVIE CORY DAVIS




RICHARD E. SMITH, JR.



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS  

    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 marijuana & Possession of cocaine - Continuance - Exclusion of testimony - URCCC 9.04(I) - M.R.E. 801 - M.R.E. 802 - Sufficiency of evidence - Habitual offender status

    Summary of the Facts: Kevie Davis was convicted of possession of marijuana and possession of cocaine. He was sentenced for his conviction of possession of marijuana to three years and fined $3,000. For his conviction of possession of cocaine, Davis was sentenced to twenty-four years and fined $500,000. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Continuance Davis argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for a continuance. A conviction will not be reversed based on the denial of a motion for a continuance unless the decision resulted in a manifest injustice. The record shows that prior to the second denial of Davis’ motion for a continuance, Davis was previously granted a continuance based upon the same set of facts. On this motion for a continuance, Davis was given an opportunity to present evidence of his physical or mental challenges; however, he failed to do so satisfactorily. The trial judge offered to make physical and medical accommodations for him during the trial. Thus, the issue was properly considered by the trial judge. Issue 2: Exclusion of testimony Davis argues that the court abused its discretion when it excluded the testimony of three defense witnesses and, in effect, limited the testimony of one other witness due to Davis’ failure to timely disclose the witnesses to the prosecution. Davis did not disclose the identity of the witnesses or the expected testimony until the morning of trial, despite the fact that the discovery deadlines had expired a month before trial was scheduled. Although the court excluded the testimony without performing the three-part test of URCCC 9.04(I), the substance of the testimonies of two of these witnesses amount to impermissible hearsay under M.R.E. 801 and would have been excluded under M.R.E. 802. The testimony of a third witness was irrelevant. The testimony of the fourth witness was not excluded. Instead, the defense did not have him testify. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Davis argues that the evidence is insufficient, because a witness who testified was a previously convicted felon. However, the jury sits as the fact-finder and determines the credibility of the witnesses against the accused. The evidence supports the State’s claim that Davis was in possession of the marijuana found in the vehicle driven by him, as well as in possession of the cocaine before the package was thrown from the vehicle. Issue 4: Habitual offender status Davis argues that he should not have been sentenced as a habitual offender because his prior offenses were not proved by competent evidence. The State presented certified documentation of Davis’ two prior convictions in Tennessee for auto theft. The trial court accepted the documentation as evidence of two prior convictions, and the certified convictions were later introduced into the record as exhibits. There is no error in the decision of the trial court to accept the certified documentation as proof of Davis’ previous convictions.


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