Finn v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-CT-00393-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-00393-COA ; 2006-CA-00393-COA ; 2006-CT-00393-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-10-2008 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of pseudoephedrine - Section 41-29-313(2)(c)(i) - Units of measurement - Section 41-29-139 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Graves, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Diaz, P.J. Dissenting Author : Lamar, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Dickinson, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-07-2006 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED. Finn was charged with violating Mississippi Code Annotated Section 41-29-313 (2)(c)(I) (Rev. 2005) by possessing greater than fifteen grams of pseudoephedrine, where he knew or should have known that the pseudoephedrine would be used to manufacture a controlled substance. Finn pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections with three of those years to be suspended. District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CV05-136(PF)L |
|
| Note: | This opinion reverses the Court of Appeals decision at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO42253.pdf and reinstates and affirms the trial court's judgment. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | STEVEN FINN |
JOHN CARL HELMERT, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE McCRORY |
|
|
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 pseudoephedrine - Section 41-29-313(2)(c)(i) - Units of measurement - Section 41-29-139 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Steven Finn pled guilty to possessing greater than fifteen grams of pseudoephedrine. He was sentenced to five years with three of those years to be suspended. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief arguing that section 41-29-313 (2)(c)(i) does not criminalize possession of greater than fifteen grams of pseudoephedrine if the pseudoephedrine is in dosage form. The circuit court denied his motion. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Court of Appeals found that dosage units are the preferred units of measure for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. The Court of Appeals reasoned that only when the drug was not in “dosage unit” form was the weight of the drug to be considered. Section 41-29-313(2)(c)(i) makes it “unlawful to purchase, possess, transfer or distribute two hundred fifty (250) dosage units or fifteen (15) grams in weight (dosage unit and weight as defined in Section 41-29-139) of pseudoephedrine or ephedrine.” It appears that the provision for the weight measurement of fifteen grams is an alternative to the measure of 250 dosage units. Finn is attempting to insert a condition that is not stated in the law; he wants the weight of the drug only to be considered as an alternative when the drug does not appear in dosage form. To do so would be to tread on the domain of the Legislature, as it alone has the power to create and modify statutes. Finn argues that, because section 41-29-313(2)(c)(i) refers to section 41-29-139, weight is to be used only if the drug is not in the form of dosage units. Section 41-29-139 specifically provides what is to be done when the controlled substance does not fall within the definition of dosage units. But the statute is silent as to those that do fall within the definition of “dosage units.” The drugs Finn possessed did fall into the definition of “dosage unit.” When the drug falls under the definition of “dosage unit,” the state has prosecutorial discretion under section 41-29-313 to base the charges on the dosage units or on the weight of the drug. The Court of Appeals erred by reading too much into the “definition” section referenced in the statute. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
