Long v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-01861-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-20-2011 Opinion Author: Graves, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of controlled substance within 1,000 feet of public park - Weight of evidence - Closing argument - Sufficiency of evidence - M.R.E. 602 - Habitual offender status - Cruel and unusual punishment Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-02-2009 Appealed from: Desoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: The jury found Long guilty of selling a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a public park. The trial judge sentenced Long to a term of life imprisonment in the Mississippi Department of Corrections to be served as a Section 99-19-83 habitual offender. District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: CR2008-343CD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Richard Leon Long |
OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: GEORGE T. HOLMES, LESLIE S. LEE |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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: | Sale of controlled substance within 1,000 feet of public park - Weight of evidence - Closing argument - Sufficiency of evidence - M.R.E. 602 - Habitual offender status - Cruel and unusual punishment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Richard Long was convicted of selling a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a public park. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and resolving all reasonable inferences in favor of the State, the jury verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The surveillance video makes clear the fact that Long sold Valium to the undercover agent on January 22, 2009, at the location alleged in the indictment. Long argued that the surveillance video was unreliable because it did not show any drugs or money being exchanged and the alleged seller was shown only for a brief moment. Although the man selling the Valium was shown on the video for only a brief moment, the agent testified that the man on the video was Long. Furthermore, while no money or drugs are seen on the video, the agent testified that he counted out $100 and exchanged the money for the pills. The pills were then delivered to the Mississippi Crime Laboratory, where it was determined that the pills were, in fact, Valium, a controlled substance. Issue 2: Closing argument Long argues that the prosecutor’s closing remarks equated to a “send-a-message” argument. In determining whether the argument complained of constituted an improper “send-a-message” argument, the court considers whether defense counsel objected to the statement and whether, in light of the surrounding circumstances, defense counsel invited the statement. Long failed to object during the State’s closing argument. Also, the statement was not so inflammatory that the trial judge should have objected on his own motion. The State’s remarks were simply reiterating the jury’s duty set forth in the jury instructions. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Long argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence that the alleged sale occurred within 1,000 feet of a public park, because the State’s star witness did not have personal knowledge that the sale occurred within 1,000 feet of a public park as required under M.R.E. 602. There was sufficient evidence to convict Long of selling a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a public park. When asked what property borders the trailer park where Long sold the agent the Valium, the agent testified that the trailer park “meets up right there at the city park, the public park that we have in Olive Branch. It’s about 100 feet right behind [Long’s] house.” The agent further testified that the park is used for softball, fishing, walking, and “just city park stuff.” The agent did have personal knowledge that the park was, in fact, a “public park.” Any rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that all the elements had been met by the State in proving the sale of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a public park. Issue 4: Habitual offender status Based on the State’s presentation of evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Long as an habitual offender to life imprisonment. At sentencing, the State presented the trial court with certified copies of Long’s commitment papers from the State of Colorado showing that Long had been convicted of three felonies on two separate occasions and had served separate terms of more than one year each in prison. Long admits to having been convicted of these three felonies. However, Long argues that his Colorado conviction for sexual assault of a child was consensual sex with a seventeen-year-old. He further argues that the alleged victim in his Colorado conviction for aggravated incest with his own child was not his daughter. Thus, Long takes the position that the trial court erred by not fully investigating the nature of his prior convictions, which were the basis of his sentence as an habitual offender. However, the State presented sufficient evidence to make the requisite showing that Long previously had been convicted of two or more felonies on charges separately brought and arising out of separate indictments at different times, that Long was sentenced to and served separate terms of one year or more in Colorado’s penal institution, and that at least one conviction was for a crime of violence. Issue 5: Cruel and unusual punishment Long argues that life in prison without the possibility of parole for the sale of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a public park is unconstitutionally disproportionate and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Sentences under the habitual-offender statute do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
