King v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-KA-00688-COA
Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-00688-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-22-2008
Opinion Author: IRVING, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of cocaine & marijuana with intent to distribute - Suppression of evidence - Sufficiency of evidence
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: 02-27-2004
Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Richard Smith
Disposition: CONVICTION OF COUNT I: POSSESSION OF COCAINE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE AND SENTENCE OF A TERM OF THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND CONVICTION OF COUNT II: POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE AND SENTENCE OF A TERM OF TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND FINE OF $5,000; SENTENCE IN COUNT II TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN COUNT I; EXECUTION OF SENTENCE IN COUNT II SUSPENDED; AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION
District Attorney: Willie Dewayne Richardson
Case Number: 2003-0149

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: ALSTON KING




WHITMAN D. MOUNGER



 

Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LAURA H. TEDDER  

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 cocaine & marijuana with intent to distribute - Suppression of evidence - Sufficiency of evidence

Summary of the Facts: Alston King was convicted of one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and one count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The court sentenced King to thirty years for the cocaine possession and ten years for the marijuana possession, with the ten-year sentence to run consecutively to the thirty-year sentence. The court also suspended the execution of the ten-year sentence. King was further ordered to serve five years of post-release supervision and was assessed a five-thousand-dollar fine. King appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Suppression of evidence King argues that the court erred in finding that he lacked standing to object to the search of the box because of his denial of ownership of the box. Because King provides no legal authority for his contention, the issue is procedurally barred. In addition, when King denied ownership of the box, he relinquished the ability to object to its search and seizure. King also appears to complain generally about the search of his house by firefighters. Since the firefighters were responding to an emergency situation, they did not require a warrant to enter King’s home. Furthermore, testimony established that the movement of furniture and other debris was required to properly search for hot spots. Any criminal items that were found in plain view were admissible without a warrant. King argues that his statement should not have been introduced into evidence because he was not first read his Miranda rights. Although King was questioned by the police, there is no evidence in the record that he was not free to leave at any time during the questioning. King drove himself to the station and entered of his own volition. There is nothing to indicate that anything stopped him from thereafter leaving at any time. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence King argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he possessed a controlled substance with intent to distribute the substance. However, there is evidence in the record to support the jury’s finding of intent, namely, the quantity of drugs that was found. There was uncontradicted evidence that the amount of drugs found, specifically over fifty thousand dollars’ worth, was too great an amount to be used simply for personal consumption. Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to show that King intended to distribute the drugs.


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