Dixon, et al. v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-CT-01582-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-01582-SCT ; 2004-KA-01582-COA ; 2004-KA-01582-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-12-2007 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: As to Tracy Dixon: Conviction of Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Distribute and Sentence of Thirty (30) Years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and Payment of a fine of $500,000, Affirmed. As to Jerry Lee Ford: Conviction of Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Distribute and Sentence of Thirty (30) Years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and Payment of a fine of $500,000, Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute - Sufficiency of evidence - Constructive possession - Expert testimony Judge(s) Concurring: Diaz, Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Waller, P.J. Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, P.J. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-21-2004 Appealed from: Sunflower County Circuit Court Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: Appellants Tracy Dixon and Jerry Ford were convicted in the Circuit Court of Sunflower County of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, each being sentenced to a term of thirty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and ordered to pay a fine of $500,000. District Attorney: Joyce Ivy Chiles Case Number: 2004-0049-K |
|
| Consolidated: This opinion holds that it was improper to add the two separate amounts for a total of twenty grams and hold both Ford and Dixon possessed that total amount of cocaine with intent to distribute. This opinion finds that Ford and Dixon are each guilty of possession of their separate amounts of cocaine with intent to distribute. However, the sentence each received of thirty years and a fine of $500,000 is unaffected by their proper conviction for possession with intent to distribute of thirteen and a half grams of cocaine by Ford and six and a half grams by Dixon. | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Tracy Dixon and Jerry Ford a/k/a Jerry Lee Ford |
GLENN STURDIVANT SWARTZFAGER
BILL WALLER, SR. |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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 - Constructive possession - Expert testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tracy Dixon and Jerry Ford were convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and each was sentenced to thirty years and ordered to pay a fine of $500,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Ford and Dixon argue that the evidence was insufficient to prove possession by each of them of the total twenty grams of cocaine found. The record contains sufficient evidence to support “intent to distribute.” The officer who arrested Ford testified that Ford had a bag of cocaine with thirteen or fourteen individually wrapped rocks, each rock being similar in size and worth a street value of approximately $100 each. The officer who arrested Dixon testified that Dixon had an aspirin bottle containing approximately seventy-five rocks, smaller than those Ford had. Each rock, in the officer’s opinion, had a street value of about $20. The defendants were convicted of possession of twenty grams of cocaine pursuant to the constructive possession doctrine. However, only thirteen and a half grams were attributed to having been in Ford’s physical possession and six and a half grams were attributed to having been in Dixon’s physical possession. Constructive possession may be shown by establishing that the drug involved was subject to the defendant’s dominion or control. Mere association with the person who physically possessed the controlled substance is insufficient. The relevant facts connecting Ford to the six and a half grams Dixon actually possessed include: Ford owned the car he was driving when the police stopped the defendants, Dixon was a passenger in the car with Ford when Ford was pulled over in a traffic stop, and the arresting officer identified Dixon as being in actual possession of six and a half grams of cocaine at the time of the traffic stop. This evidence is insufficient to show that Ford had dominion and control over the drugs actually possessed by his passenger. Thus, Ford was not in constructive possession of the cocaine actually possessed by Dixon. The facts connecting Dixon to the thirteen and a half grams of cocaine Ford actually possessed were that: Dixon was a passenger in the car Ford was driving when the police stopped the car and the state’s witness identified Ford as being in actual possession of the substance which Dixon allegedly constructively possessed. There is nothing to connect Dixon to the cocaine Ford had except Dixon’s presence in the car with Ford. That fact contributes to a showing of physical proximity, but presence alone is insufficient to establish constructive possession. The difference in denomination, weight, and size of drugs in possession of each defendant raises the possibility that each was handling his drugs independently of the other. The facts simply do not rise to the level of establishing dominion and control or creating an inference of constructive possession. The trial court judgment of conviction of Ford for possession of the thirteen and a half grams he actually possessed with intent to distribute and the conviction of Dixon for possession of the six and a half grams he actually possessed with intent to distribute is affirmed. As these convictions will not affect the sentence imposed by the trial court, their sentences are also affirmed. The trial court judgment of conviction of possession of the entire twenty grams for each defendant is reversed, but the conviction and sentence of each defendant for possession with intent to distribute cocaine is affirmed. Issue 2: Expert testimony The two officers who testified against Ford and Dixon said, based on their knowledge and experience as narcotic officers, that the amount and packaging of the drugs indicated Ford and Dixon intended to distribute the drugs. Ford and Dixon argue that the court erred in allowing the police officers to testify as to the value and packaging of the cocaine without being qualified as expert witnesses. However, trial counsel failed to raise this issue. Issues not presented to the trial court for lack of contemporaneous objection are procedurally barred, and error, if any, is waived. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
