Johnson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-02018-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-02018-SCT ; 2007-KA-02018-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-13-2008 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery & Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Motion to suppress - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Lamar, J. Concurs in Result Only: Smith, C.J., and Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-27-2007 Appealed from: SIMPSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: Count I: Conviction of felon in possession of a firearm and sentence of five (5) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Count lI: Conviction of armed robbery and sentence of life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Count III: Conviction of armed robbery and sentence of life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Sentences in Counts ll and lll shall run consecutively. Sentence in Count l shall run concurrently with the sentences imposed in Counts ll and lll. District Attorney: Eddie H. Bowen Case Number: 2005-82K |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | CHARLES LAMAR JOHNSON |
MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF INDIGENT
APPEALS BY: GEORGE T. HOLMES |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LA DONNA C. HOLLAND | ||
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: | Armed robbery & Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Motion to suppress - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charles Johnson was convicted of two counts of armed robbery and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Johnson was sentenced on Count II, armed robbery, to serve a term of life imprisonment, and on Count III, armed robbery, to serve a term of life imprisonment, each of these two counts to run consecutively to one another. Johnson was sentenced on Count I of the indictment, felon in possession of a firearm, to serve a term of five years, to run concurrently with the other sentences. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Motion to suppress Johnson argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of his vehicle. While a warrant is generally required before the search for or seizure of evidence may be conducted, no warrant is required to seize an object in plain view when viewed by an officer from a place he has the lawful right to be, its incriminating character is readily apparent and the officer has a lawful right of access to the evidence. In this case, the officer had probable cause to stop Johnson for running a red light. When the officer initially stopped Johnson, he approached the vehicle and saw the black duffel bag with the rolled coins on the passenger seat. He also stated that, prior to stopping Johnson, a police radio dispatch had informed him that a black duffel bag was used to take money, including rolled coins, in the Wendy’s robbery. In addition, testimony revealed that brown cotton gloves, a blue ski mask, and wallet with an “OK” sticker all were in plain view in the vehicle. All of these items were described by the Wendy’s employees to law enforcement. Accordingly, no warrant was required to seize these items, as they met the plain-view exception for a warrantless search. Johnson also argues that the search was not a proper search incident to arrest. The personal effects in the arrestee's possession at the place of detention, which were subject to a search at the time and place of arrest, may later be searched and seized without a warrant at the place of detention. The search of Johnson and his vehicle was valid pursuant to the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the requirement for a warrant. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Johnson argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a circumstantial-evidence instruction. He claims that his case was completely circumstantial, because there were no eyewitnesses and no confession. However, there was direct evidence of the armed robbery by four Wendy’s employees who witnessed the crime. These employees testified to items used or taken by the masked man during the armed robbery and to his threats to kill them. Johnson was pulled over thirty minutes after the armed robbery occurred at Wendy’s. He was wearing a tan shirt and distinctive white tennis shoes with a blue and red stripe similar to the clothing described by the Wendy’s employees as being worn by the robber. Furthermore, he had brown cotton gloves, a blue ski mask, a denim wallet with an “OK” sticker on it, a black duffel bag with rolled coins, various amounts of bills, and Wendy’s receipts dated February 21, 2005. Since eyewitnesses to the crime testified and the evidence against Johnson was overwhelming, a circumstantial evidence instruction was not appropriate. Therefore, trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to request one. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
