Williams v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-KA-01767-COA
Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-01767-COA
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-01-2009
Opinion Author: KING, C.J.
Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART
Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Habitual offender status - Section 99-19-81 - M.R.A.P. 10 - Motion to suppress
Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-01-2008
Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert Helfrich
Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A CONVICTED FELON AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PROBATION, PAROLE, OR EARLY RELEASE
District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers
Case Number: 08-234CR
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: JAMES CALVIN WILLIAMS




 HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY JR.  
    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 firearm by convicted felon - Habitual offender status - Section 99-19-81 - M.R.A.P. 10 - Motion to suppress
    Summary of the Facts: James Williams was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years. He appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Habitual offender status Williams argues that the State failed to prove that he was a habitual offender pursuant to section 99-19-81. He argues that the State failed to prove that he had two prior felony offenses and had received a sentence of at least one year for each conviction. The State has the burden of proof as to all the essential elements of the crime charged. In this case, the record contains a certified copy of Williams’s sentencing order for the 1988 conviction for the possession of a controlled substance. However, the record does not contain the certified copy of the 1992 conviction, which the State had indicated was being introduced into evidence. The designation of the record required pursuant to M.R.A.P. 10(b)(1) includes all papers on file with the Forrest County Circuit Clerk in this cause, certified copies of docket entries, pretrial motion transcripts, and exhibits, jury voir dire, jury instructions (given and refused), post-trial motion transcripts as well as all exhibits filed, taken, or offered. Under M.R.A.P. 10(b)(5), the appellee also is tasked with reviewing the record to ascertain that it is both correct and complete. In the event that the record as designated by the appellant is either incorrect or incomplete, the appellee has an obligation to make written submissions to the clerk of the trial court identifying errors or omissions. Since the record does not include any proof of a 1992 felony conviction, the State failed to prove that Williams was a habitual offender. Issue 2: Motion to suppress Williams argues that even if his detention was considered an investigatory stop, the conduct of the officers was unreasonable in that they possessed no specific facts upon which they could have reasonably believed that Williams was armed. At approximately 2:20 a.m., the officers observed an individual riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, without a headlight and reflectors, in what was described as a high- crime area. The officers testified that they attempted to stop Williams to clarify what was beyond question an ambiguous set of circumstances. When without provocation, Williams attempted to elude the officers that further heightened the ambiguity and the justification for the attempted stop. When the officers reached Williams, they attempted to gain control of the situation and to protect themselves by placing him in handcuffs. As they did so, Williams struggled, and the gun fell out of the waistband of his pants. When the gun was retrieved from the ground, it was not the product of an illegal search and seizure.


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