Johnson v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-KA-01099-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-14-2010
Opinion Author: Maxwell, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior conviction - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-16-2008
Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Margaret Carey-McCray
Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF COCAINE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSIS S IP P I DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND F IVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AND TO PAY A $50,000 FINE, HALF OF WHICH WILL BE SUSPENDED UPON COMPLETION OF ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF SENTENCE; A $300 CRIME LAB FEE; AND $500 TO THE MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS’ COMPENSATION FUND
District Attorney: Willie Dewayne Richardson
Case Number: 2007-232

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Cleveland Johnson a/k/a Cleveland Johnson, Jr.




W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF, LESLIE S. LEE, CLAYTON MATTHEW CUMMINGS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • 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 cocaine with intent to distribute - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior conviction - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403

    Summary of the Facts: Cleveland Johnson was convicted of possession of cocaine base, crack cocaine, with intent to distribute. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Johnson argues the State offered insufficient evidence that he possessed the drugs. To establish possession, the State must show the defendant was aware of the cocaine and intentionally, but not necessarily physically, possessed it. Further, because the officers found the cocaine in a vehicle that Johnson did not exclusively control, the State had to offer additional incriminating facts – other than proximity – to link Johnson to the cocaine. The owner of the Cadillac testified that when the police stopped the Cadillac, she saw Johnson take something out of his pocket and slide it down. From this, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Johnson tried to hide the cocaine near his feet. She also testified that Johnson had driven her car several different times on the day of his arrest, most notably at the time of the stop. The officer testified that he found the cocaine on the driver’s side floorboard, in plain view, near where Johnson had been seated. When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the additional incriminating facts and close proximity of the drugs are sufficient to establish Johnson’s awareness of the cocaine and conscious intent to possess it. Issue 2: Prior conviction Johnson argues that the circuit judge erred in admitting his 1993 conviction for sale of cocaine to show intent under M.R.E. 404(b). He argues that because he denied possessing the cocaine found in the Cadillac, proof of his intent to distribute the drug is irrelevant. This argument is contrary to the deep-rooted premise that a defendant’s plea of not guilty puts upon the State the burden of establishing every fact necessary to constitute guilt. Mississippi appellate courts have not addressed whether a defendant’s denial of possession of a controlled substance precludes the admission of 404(b) evidence aimed at showing the defendant’s intent to distribute the substance. But the Fifth Circuit has found that when a defendant is charged with intent to distribute cocaine, his state of mind with regard to the cocaine is a critical element of the crime. Johnson’s blanket denial of wrongdoing did not relieve the State of going forward and proving each necessary element of the drug-distribution offense. Even when other-crimes evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b), it must pass through the “ultimate filter” of M.R.E. 403. The circuit court’s Rule 403 analysis was specific and touched on admitting the evidence for two well-established reasons – showing Johnson’s prior involvement in the drug trade to prove intent to distribute and presenting the complete story of the crime. The judge did not abuse her discretion in admitting Johnson’s prior conviction.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court