Logan v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KP-01790-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-01790-COA ; 2006-KP-01790-COA ; 2006-CT-01790-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-01-2008 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary - Defective indictment - URCCC 7.06 - Admission of evidence - Right to counsel - Identification - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-11-2006 Appealed from: Covington County Circuit Court Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS OF BURGLARY AND SENTENCED TO SERVE CONCURRENT TERMS OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS ON EACH COUNT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER District Attorney: Eddie H. Bowen Case Number: 2004-44-K |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | WILLIAM JAMES LOGAN, JR. |
WILLIAM JAMES LOGAN, JR. (PRO SE) |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DESHUN TERRELL MARTIN | ||
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: | Burglary - Defective indictment - URCCC 7.06 - Admission of evidence - Right to counsel - Identification - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Logan Jr. was convicted of two counts of burglary and was sentenced, as a habitual offender, to serve concurrent terms of twenty-five years on each count. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Logan argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictment, because he was not given an opportunity to agree or disagree with the amendment of the indictment. Amendment shall be allowed only if the defendant is afforded a fair opportunity to present a defense and is not unfairly surprised. Logan argues that his defense was prejudiced because, prior to the amendments, he could have shown that he was incarcerated on June 5, 2004, the date originally provided in the indictment as the date the homes were burglarized. The amendments precluded Logan from making that particular argument. However, Logan suffered no prejudice as a result of the amendments because they were merely amendments as to form. Logan also argues that the indictment is impermissibly vague because it fails to provide the addresses of the houses where the burglaries occurred and to specify the property that was stolen. The indictment sufficiently complied with URCCC 7.06, as it provided the essential facts constituting the two counts of burglary which Logan was charged with committing. Issue 2: Admission of evidence The trial judge, over objection by the defense, allowed into evidence several items that were seized during the investigation. Logan argues that the deputies illegally searched his vehicle while it was impounded because they did so without securing a valid search warrant. The piggy banks and gold coins were in plain view when the deputy Newman approached Logan’s vehicle, and the $2,300 was seized following an inventory search which was conducted pursuant to routine police procedure. It is permissible for officers to conduct an inventory search of a vehicle when the circumstances require it to be impounded. The circumstances required that Logan’s vehicle be impounded, as he was alone in the vehicle when it was stopped. Thus, there was no error in the trial court’s decision to admit the piggy banks and gold coins and testimony regarding the $2,300. Issue 3: Right to counsel Logan argues that he did not have an attorney acting on his behalf when he waived arraignment and entered a not guilty plea. However, the record shows otherwise. The waiver bears his court-appointed attorney’s signature, his attorney of record at the time. Issue 4: Identification Logan argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to elicit eyewitness testimony because no pretrial identification procedure was conducted. The record belies Logan’s assertion. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Logan argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his court-appointed attorney and from his trial attorney. Logan’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as it relates to his court-appointed attorney, is based on his contention that he was not informed that the indictment had been amended. While he argues that he did not become aware of the amendments until during the trial, he does not argue that his defense was adversely affected beyond denying him the opportunity to show that he was in jail on the date contained in the original indictment. As for Logan’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim against his retained trial attorney, this issue lacks merit. He argues that he suffered reversible error because his trial attorney said during voir dire that he was a habitual offender. Logan’s trial attorney did not err in informing the jury of Logan’s habitual offender status, as the information was included in his indictment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
