Tucker v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-CT-00762-SCT Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-00762-COA ; 2008-KA-00762-COA ; 2008-CT-00762-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-04-2010 Opinion Author: Graves, P.J. Holding: Reversed and rendered. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of stolen property - Sufficiency of indictment Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson, Kitchens and Chandler, JJ. Dissenting Author : Pierce, J., Dissents With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : Carlson, P.J., Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-20-2007 Appealed from: Clay County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: Anthony Lee Tucker was convicted of possession of stolen property arising from a burglary of Foot Gear in West Point, Mississippi. After Tucker’s conviction, the trial court amended Tucker’s indictment to add habitual-offender status. Tucker was sentenced to serve ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) and to pay a fine of $10,000 upon his release. The initial appeal was decided by the Court of Appeals, which affirmed Tucker’s conviction and sentence. Tucker v. State, 2009 WL 4043374, at *2 (Miss. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2009). District Attorney: FORREST ALLGOOD Case Number: 8886 |
|
| Note: | This opinion reverses and renders a previous opinion by the Mississippi Court of Appeals. See the original opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO59469.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Anthony Lee Tucker |
OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: LESLIE S. LEE |
||
| 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: | Possession of stolen property - Sufficiency of indictment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Anthony Tucker was convicted for possession of stolen property arising from a burglary. After Tucker’s conviction, the trial court amended Tucker’s indictment to add habitual-offender status and sentenced Tucker to ten years. The Court of Appeals affirmed Tucker’s conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Tucker argues that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Tucker’s indictment was sufficient, even though the stolen property allegedly possessed by Tucker was not set forth with sufficient particularity. Specifically, Tucker argues that “athletic apparel, said property having a total value in excess of $500.00" does not describe the stolen property allegedly in his possession with sufficient particularity as required by law. The State argues that because Tucker’s indictment listed the owner, the class or item, and the value of the “athletic apparel” that his indictment was legally sufficient. While the Court of Appeals may be correct in finding that some of the stolen property can be classified as “athletic apparel,” it is clear that not all the items recovered fit into this classification. The record shows that the approximately 140 items recovered from the premises where Tucker was temporarily residing consisted of athletic apparel, jeans, shoes, boots, caps, blouses, t-shirts, and warm-up jackets. Clearly, jeans, boots, and blouses are not considered “athletic apparel.” Tucker’s indictment should have described, by classification and/or quantity, the stolen property he was being charged with receiving and/or possessing. The language in Tucker’s indictment – “athletic apparel, said property having a total value in excess of $500.00" – does not describe the stolen property with sufficient particularity to inform Tucker of the nature of the charges against him so that he may be allowed adequately to prepare his defense and so that he may protect against being placed in future jeopardy. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
