Shelton v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-00694-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-00694-COA ; 2009-CT-00694-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-16-2010 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of more than five kilograms of marijuana - Motion to suppress - Chain of custody - Jury instructions - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-23-2009 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF MORE THAN FIVE KILOGRAMS OF MARIJUANA AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION District Attorney: Michael Guest Case Number: 2008-0554 |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2009-KA-00695-COA Calvin P. Shelton v. State of Mississippi; Madison Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2008-0555; Ruling Date: 02/23/2009; Ruling Judge: William Chapman, III | ||
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | REGINALD SHELTON |
WM. ANDY SUMRALL |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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 more than five kilograms of marijuana - Motion to suppress - Chain of custody - Jury instructions - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Calvin Shelton and Reginald Shelton were convicted of possession of more than five kilograms of marijuana. The circuit court sentenced each of the Sheltons to twenty-five years followed by five years of post-release supervision. The Sheltons appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Motion to suppress Calvin and Reginald argue the circuit court erred in denying their motion to suppress. There is a two-fold test to determine whether a law enforcement officer’s search and seizure were reasonable: whether the officer's action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. To satisfy the first prong, the law enforcement officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. In this case, the deputy stopped Calvin and Reginald after they drove past him on I-55. According to the deputy, the driver of the rental car, Calvin, crossed over the right fog line and then over-compensated left and crossed the lines that divided two lanes. A law enforcement officer has the authority to stop a motorist if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person is committing a traffic offense. Failure to have regard for the width and use of the street by swerving off the side of the road or crossing the marker lines constitutes probable cause for a traffic stop. During the stop, the deputy observed behavior that, according to him, indicated that Calvin and Reginald were nervous. The deputy was able to articulate that behavior, such as avoiding eye contact with him and being inconsistent in describing the details of their trip. If, during a traffic stop, a law enforcement officer develops reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity other than what was originally suspected, the scope of the officer’s stop expands and includes the investigation of the newly-suspected criminal activity. Consequently, the deputy retrieved a drug-detecting dog from his own patrol car. Even without reasonable, articulable suspicion, the performance of a dog sniff of the outside of a vehicle by a trained canine during a routine, valid traffic stop is not a violation of one’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Issue 2: Chain of custody Calvin and Reginald argue that the circuit court should have suppressed the evidence against them because the prosecution failed to demonstrate a sufficient chain of custody of the marijuana. The Sheltons argue that the prosecution failed to demonstrate a sufficient chain of custody because the Madison County Sheriff’s Department did not label the smaller bundles of marijuana that were inside the duffle bag. A strong presumption of validity accompanies actions of law enforcement officials with regard to preservation of evidence. The proponent of the evidence must show no reasonable inference of material tampering with, or substitution of, the evidence; however, Mississippi law has never required a proponent of evidence to produce every handler of the evidence. The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and the burden to produce evidence of a broken chain of custody (i.e., tampering) is on the defendant. The Sheltons did not produce evidence of a broken chain of custody or tampering. They merely raised unfounded allegations based on conjecture surrounding the concept that failure to label the marijuana inside the duffle bag somehow correlated to a broken chain of custody, despite the fact that the actual duffle bag was labeled. Issue 3: Jury instructions The Sheltons argue the circuit court erred when it refused to instruct the jury pursuant to the Sheltons’ proffered jury instructions which amounted to depriving them of their opportunity to present their defense. The circuit court resolved the question of the legality of the deputy’s traffic stop and the subsequent events that led to his walking a drug-detecting dog around the perimeter of the Sheltons’ rental car. The Sheltons proffer of the jury instructions was a veiled attempt to put the issue back before the jury. Issue 4: Weight of evidence The Sheltons reiterate their previous arguments that the deputy planted the evidence against them; he had no basis to stop them; there were discrepancies in the weight of the marijuana; and the evidence was not properly labeled. In the most basic sense, the crux of the Sheltons’ argument is that the deputy was not credible. Based on the resolution of the previous issues, there is no merit to this argument. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
