Baskin v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-01355-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-01355-COA ; 2006-CT-01355-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-08-2008 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of controlled substance with intent to sell - Sufficiency of evidence - Disproportionate sentence - Amendment of indictment 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: 05-26-2006 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER AND SENTENCED TO SERVE SIXTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. District Attorney: David Byrd Clark Case Number: 2005-0596 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | KEITH BASKIN A/K/A KEITH K. BASKIN |
JOSHUA AARON TURNER,
MERRIDA COXWELL |
|
|
| 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 controlled substance with intent to sell - Sufficiency of evidence - Disproportionate sentence - Amendment of indictment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Keith Baskin was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Baskin argues that the State failed to prove his intention to distribute marijuana. Intent may be determined from the acts of the accused and his conduct and inferences of guilt may be fairly deducible from all the circumstances. The officer testified that the passenger in the car, Baskin, opened the door and began throwing what appeared to be bags out onto the highway. He further testified that he was able to retrieve the last bag that was thrown from the retreating car and that large chunks of marijuana were scattered on the floor board, on and behind the passenger seat, and on the car floor. There was testimony at trial that the amount in the bag was more than a single person would generally have for personal consumption. A chemical analyst from the Mississippi Crime Lab testified that the bag of marijuana retrieved by officers would easily make anywhere from 450 to 900 marijuana cigarettes. This testimony supports the State’s argument that Baskin had sufficient intent to distribute. Issue 2: Disproportionate sentence Baskin argues that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime with which he was charged. Sentencing is within the complete discretion of the trial court and not subject to appellate review if it is within the limits prescribed by statute. Baskin has a persistent history of crimes involving the possession or sale of a controlled substance. Additionally, it is significant that the Mississippi Supreme Court has never found a maximum penalty in a drug case - even if the sentences were to run consecutively - to be cruel and unusual punishment. Here, the sentence imposed does not lead to an inference of gross disproportionality or cruel and unusual punishment. Issue 3: Amendment of indictment Baskin argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictment after the verdict but prior to sentencing. Baskin was advised, prior to trial, of the consequences of going to trial and receiving a guilty verdict in light of his past criminal history. Baskin was not prejudiced by the change in the indictment, since he was already advised of the risk of proceeding to trial and was aware of both of his previous convictions. Baskin also argues that the State’s amendment of the indictment after the jury verdict but before sentencing was vindictive. There does not appear to be actual prejudice imposed upon Baskin by the State. The prosecutor offered a plea bargain in the presence of both Baskin and his counsel. Baskin was free to accept or reject the plea bargain at issue. Further, according to information given by the State at sentencing, the State was originally aware of only one previous conviction. During the pre-sentencing investigation, the State was made aware of an additional conviction, to which Baskin was unquestionably already aware. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
