Williams v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-KA-00270-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00270-COA ; 2007-CT-00270-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-14-2008
Opinion Author: CARLTON, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of cocaine - Right to speedy trial - Jurisdiction - Disproportionate sentence - Prior convictions - M.R.E. 403 - Advice of counsel - Weight of evidence - Jury instructions
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, and Roberts, JJ.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, J. without separate written opinion.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-10-2006
Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Frank G. Vollor
Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF MORE THAN TEN GRAMS BUT LESS THAN THIRTY GRAMS OF COCAINE AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO TWENTY-FOUR YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION
District Attorney: Richard Earl Smith, Jr.
Case Number: 05,0330CRV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: HERMAN LEE WILLIAMS A/K/A HERMAN WILLIAMS A/K/A STANK




LEE DAVIS THAMES



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Supplemental Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD  

    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 - Right to speedy trial - Jurisdiction - Disproportionate sentence - Prior convictions - M.R.E. 403 - Advice of counsel - Weight of evidence - Jury instructions

    Summary of the Facts: Herman Williams was convicted of possession of cocaine. He was sentenced to twenty-four years without parole or probation. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Right to speedy trial Williams argues that because he was not tried for the possession charge until fourteen months after his arrest, he was denied a speedy trial. To determine whether a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, the court considers length of delay, reason for delay, defendant’s timely assertion of his right, and resulting prejudice. The delay of fourteen months is presumptively prejudicial. Because there is no reason given by the State for the delay in bringing Williams to trial, this factor should be weighed against the State and in favor of Williams. Williams waited more than one year from the time of his arrest to assert his right to a speedy trial. Accordingly, this factor weighs against Williams and in favor of the State. Williams was jailed on other charges during the delay between his arrest and trial. The balance of these factors favors the State. Issue 2: Jurisdiction Williams argues that the State lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the charge against him, because he was arrested on property owned by the United States. The State is free to enforce its criminal and civil laws on federal land so long as those laws do not conflict with federal law. Thus, this issue has no merit. Issue 3: Disproportionate sentence Williams argues that his sentence is unconstitutional and disproportionate. 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. Williams was properly sentenced to serve twenty-four years without possibility of parole or probation under section 99-19-81. Issue 4: Prior convictions Williams argues that the court erred in finding that he had opened the door to admission of his prior convictions. Normal impeachment applies when the defendant, on direct examination, makes blanket statements which open the door for impeachment. Once this door to the defendant/witness' criminal record has been opened, the evidence used by the State in response is more like rebuttal evidence than impeachment. While being questioned by his own counsel, Williams testified: “I’ve been working on a job for 15 years. I don’t smoke drugs.” Thus, it was within the trial judge’s discretion to allow the cross-examination regarding the prior convictions, because Williams sufficiently opened the door by claiming that he did not “smoke drugs.” Williams also argues that the trial judge did not weigh the probative value of the evidence against the prejudicial effect of the admission under M.R.E. 403. However, the trial judge did weigh the probative value of the prior convictions against the prejudicial effect. Issue 5: Advice of counsel Williams argues that after the judge ruled that Williams had, in fact, opened the door to his prior convictions, he should have been allowed to consult with his attorney before cross-examination. When a defendant becomes a witness, he has no constitutional right to consult with his lawyer while he is testifying. Issue 6: Weight of evidence Williams argues that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, because the only evidence that he had possession of the drugs found on the ground was the contradictory testimony of an officer. However, the officer’s testimony was not contradictory, but it was contradicted by defense witnesses. Where evidence is conflicting, the court should assume that the jury resolved the conflict in a manner consistent with the verdict. Issue 7: Jury instructions Williams argues that the court erred in modifying his “single juror” instruction. The instruction given properly instructed the jurors that their decision had to be unanimous. The language that was removed by the court was unnecessary. Williams also argues that the trial court erred in redacting the language regarding reasonable doubt from this jury instruction. The jury instruction as given adequately instructed the jury that they had to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Williams was guilty. Williams also argues that the trial court essentially allowed the jury to find Williams guilty of possession of cocaine without the State proving the element of “knowingly or intentionally.” The jury was properly instructed on the level of intent required to find Williams guilty of possession of cocaine.


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