Long v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01877-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-06-2010 Opinion Author: Graves, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine with intent to sale & Sale of cocaine - Weight of evidence - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Peremptory challenges - Cruel and unusual punishment Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Lamar, Kitchens and Pierce, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Randolph, J., With Separate Opinion. Concur in Part, Concur in Result Joined By 1: Carlson, P.J., Dickinson and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-14-2008 Appealed from: Grenada County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: Conviction of sale of cocaine and sentence, as a habitual offender, of life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections; Count II: Conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and sentence, as a habitual offender, of life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections; Sentence in Count II to be served consecutively to the sentence in Count I. . District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2008-105CR(A) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Charlie Demeko Long a/k/a Meko |
ROSS R. BARNETT, JR., JAMES T. McCAFFERTY, III, LESLIE S. LEE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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 with intent to sale & Sale of cocaine - Weight of evidence - Prior bad acts - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Peremptory challenges - Cruel and unusual punishment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charlie Long was convicted of one count of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell and one count of sale of cocaine. Long was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment on each count. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Long argues that a reasonable juror could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed and sold cocaine and that the State’s case was based almost entirely upon the testimony of apparent criminals. Long has failed to establish that the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would be to sanction an unconscionable injustice. Both Long and the State presented evidence. The jury weighed the evidence and determined that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Long was guilty. Issue 2: Prior bad acts Long argues that the trial court erred in allowing the district attorney to put on testimony of a witness that he had witnessed fifteen to twenty cocaine sales by Long. Even when other-crimes evidence is admissible under M.R.E. 404(b), it must pass through the ultimate filter of M.R.E. 403. Here, the trial court considered the testimony regarding Long’s prior bad acts pursuant to the Rule 403 balancing test outside the presence of the jury and found that the evidence was admissible. The court also gave a limiting instruction. Long has failed to establish that the trial court erred in admitting Rogers’ testimony. Issue 3: Peremptory challenges The trial court found that Long, who is African-American, did not establish a prima facie case for racial discrimination and overruled his Batson challenge without requiring the State to provide race-neutral reasons for its strikes. The record indicates that from the initial thirty-two jurors, the trial court struck five African-American jurors for cause. The trial court also struck a white male. The State accepted two African-American jurors and challenged two white and two African-American jurors in the first round. Long used all six of his peremptory challenges against white jurors in the first round. The State then accepted one African-American juror and struck two African-American jurors in the second round. Neither Long nor the record establishes that the prosecutor engaged in a pattern of strikes on the basis of race or gender. Moreover, neither Long nor the record establishes that the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous or contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Issue 4: Cruel and unusual punishment Long argues that two consecutive life sentences for possession and sale of cocaine as a habitual offender are disproportionate to the offenses and constitute cruel and unusual punishment. As a general rule, a sentence that does not exceed the maximum period allowed by statute will not be disturbed on appeal. However, a sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the crime committed is subject to attack on Eighth Amendment grounds. The elements for evaluating proportionality include the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; comparison of the sentence with sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and comparison of sentences imposed in other jurisdictions for commission of the same crime with the sentence imposed in this case. Long argues that there is no indication that the trial court evaluated the proportionality of the sentence to sentences imposed for similar offenses in the trial court’s jurisdiction and in other jurisdictions. However, Long fails to establish that a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality. Long’s sentence was in the statutory range, it was mandatory, and he has failed to establish that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to his crime. Therefore, the trial court did not err in sentencing Long to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
