Whitlock v. State
Docket Number: | 2009-KA-01323-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-01323-SCT |
|
Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-16-2010 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Attempted automobile burglary - Identification - Cruel and unusual punishment - Section 99-19-83 - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial; JNOV; Motion for a New Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-07-2009 Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: Conviction of attempted automobile burglary and sentence of life imprisonment, without parole or probation, as a habitual offender, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.Sentence shall not be reduced or suspended. District Attorney: Michael Guest Case Number: 17076 |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
Appellant: | Jerry Lamar Whitlock |
OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER |
|
|
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: | Attempted automobile burglary - Identification - Cruel and unusual punishment - Section 99-19-83 - Weight of evidence |
Summary of the Facts: | Jerry Whitlock was convicted for the crime of attempted automobile burglary and sentenced to life without parole as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Identification Whitlock argues that the identification procedures performed by the police department were unfairly suggestive, and thus, all identification stemming from the show-up procedure should have been inadmissible at trial, including the victim’s in-court identification of him before the jury. Factors to consider in determining whether under the totality of the circumstances the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. According to the victim’s trial testimony, she was standing close to Whitlock at the time of the incident and for a while she did not take her eyes off of him. She stated they were only inches apart, she had nothing obstructing her view, and Whitlock had nothing obstructing his face. She was also a hundred percent sure that she did not confuse the two suspects, Whitlock and the other occupant of the vehicle. The victim testified that when she identified Whitlock at the storage facility, only about an hour after the incident, there was no doubt in her mind that he was, in fact, the man who had attempted to rob her. Thus, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s admission of this identification evidence. Issue 2: Cruel and unusual punishment Whitlock argues that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole as a habitual offender for attempted automobile burglary is disproportionate to the crime and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Whitlock was sentenced to and served terms of one year or more in a state penal institution on each of his prior six felony convictions, and at least one of these felonies was a crime of violence. In fact, Whitlock’s prior convictions involved at least three crimes of violence. Thus, it is clear that Whitlock met the criteria to be sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment without parole under section 99-19-83. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Whitlock argues that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, because the victim stated that the driver of the vehicle had attempted to rob her, but when the officer pulled the vehicle over, Whitlock was the passenger. However, an investigator testified that it came to law enforcement’s attention through the other occupant of the vehicle that the suspects had made a stop prior to being pulled over by the officer. Reasonable jurors logically could infer that the two occupants of the vehicle had swapped positions during this stop. The victim provided substantial and believable testimony that Whitlock was indeed the man who had attempted to burglarize her vehicle. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court