Grim v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KP-01920-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-KP-01920-COA ; 2008-CT-01920-SCT ; 2008-CT-01920-SCT ; 2008-CT-01920-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-15-2010 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Sentencing dates - URCCC 11.03(1) - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence - Propriety of indictment Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts 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: 11-14-2008 Appealed from: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Al Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF THE SALE OF COCAINE AND SENTENCED, AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION, TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH THE SENTENCE TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO ANY AND ALL SENTENCES PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED District Attorney: Brenda Fay Mitchell Case Number: 2008-0120 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Frederick Denell Grim |
PRO SE |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER | ||
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: | Sale of cocaine - Sentencing dates - URCCC 11.03(1) - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sufficiency of evidence - Propriety of indictment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Frederick Grim was convicted of the sale of cocaine and sentenced to life as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sentencing dates Grim argues that the indictment that was used to charge him was fatally defective because it did not include the dates of sentencing for his prior convictions that were used to prove habitual-offender status. Grim also argues that the State failed to introduce any proof of the dates of his sentences at his sentencing hearing. The records supervisor for the MDOC testified that Grim had served at least a year in prison on two prior felony charges. While the documents that were produced by the State were not as clear, this testimony was sufficient to prove Grim’s habitual-offender status. The indictment listed Grim’s prior convictions, including each cause number, the courts of conviction, the dates of the convictions, what crime Grim had been convicted of for each conviction, the dates of the offenses, and the length of sentences that Grim received. Clearly, this information complied with the requirements of URCCC 11.03(1). Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Grim argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at both his trial and his sentencing hearing. The record is inadequate to address this issue. Thus, he may raise this issue, if he desires to do so, during appropriate post-conviction proceedings where he will be able to present a more adequate appellate record to support his contentions. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Grim challenges the adequacy of the evidence that was offered to prove that the substance sold was cocaine, because the individual that did the analysis did not testify. The laboratory technician who physically performed the drug analysis need not testify as long as someone with adequate involvement with the testing process testifies. Here, a witness testified that he reviewed the results that were generated by the technician and ensured that the proper tests were performed. His involvement was more than that of a mere custodian of records and properly established that the substance sold by Grim was, in fact, cocaine. Issue 4: Propriety of indictment Grim argues that the State’s indictment improperly cited both section 99-19-81 and section 99-19-83. The two citations put Grim on notice that he could be sentenced under either statute and were not improper. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
