Heidelberg v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-00917-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-00917-COA ; 2009-CT-00917-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-12-2010 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery - Habitual offender status - Amendment of indictment Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J., concurs in result only without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-08-2009 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: CONVICTED OF SEXUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION District Attorney: Anthony J. Buckley Case Number: 2008-87-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Roger Heidelberg |
LESLIE S. LEE, MICHAEL DUANE MITCHELL, JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK |
|
|
| 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: | Sexual battery - Habitual offender status - Amendment of indictment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Roger Heidelberg was convicted of sexual battery and sentenced as a habitual offender to life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Heidelberg argues that the State’s failure to offer two certified sentencing orders during the sentencing hearing requires reversal of his sentence. Heidelberg neither raised any objection to the manner in which the State proved his habitual-offender status during his sentencing hearing, nor contested it in his motion for a new trial. When an accused fails to object to the habitual offender issue during the sentencing phase, he is procedurally barred to do so the first time on appeal. Prior to trial, the State attached certified copies of Heidelberg’s two prior felony sentencing orders to its motion to amend his indictment. The circuit judge then ordered the indictment amended to reflect Heidelberg’s prior convictions and habitual-offender status. The circuit court also incorporated an attachment listing the certified sentencing orders into the amended indictment. Thus, Heidelberg clearly had advance notice of the State’s intent to seek the enhanced sentence. Heidelberg had sufficient notice and ample opportunity to challenge the qualifying convictions but chose not to do so. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
