Wilson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00137-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-00137-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-08-2006 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Robbery - Amendment of indictment - Suppression of statements - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Diaz, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-15-2004 Appealed from: Warren County Circuit Court Judge: Frank G. Vollor Disposition: Wilson was convicted of robbery, and sentenced as a habitual offender to serve a term of life without parole in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. District Attorney: Gilmore Martin Case Number: 040162-CRV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Bobby Earl Wilson, Jr. |
HENRY C. CLAY, III |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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: | Robbery - Amendment of indictment - Suppression of statements - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bobby Wilson was convicted of robbery. Wilson was sentenced as a habitual offender to serve a term of life without parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Amendment of indictment Wilson argues that the court erred in allowing the State to amend the original indictment to charge him as a habitual offender. However, Mississippi law allows an amendment of an indictment to charge a defendant as a habitual offender even after the jury has returned a guilty verdict. Wilson was put on notice the State sought to amend the indictment months before trial and therefore, he was not unfairly surprised by the amendment. Issue 2: Suppression of statements Wilson argues that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements he made when he was stopped by the officer, because the officer lacked probable cause to stop him. Wilson argues that because the officer thought he was a shoplifter when he stopped him, the officer was stopping a suspect for a misdemeanor crime not committed in his presence which resulted in an illegal arrest. The distinction is not whether the crime was a misdemeanor or a felony for an investigative stop, but whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime had been committed. Here, the officer had reasonable suspicion. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Wilson argues that the facts of the case did not support a robbery conviction. However, a review of the record refutes that assertion and demonstrates that the elements of robbery were established. Three bank tellers testified about putting money in a bag. One of the tellers saw Wilson’s knife on the counter. When the officer stopped Wilson and asked him his name, Wilson responded, “bank robber.” The officer testified that Wilson had red dye on his hands and his shirt and that a steak knife was recovered from Wilson. Another officer collected money found in a Wal-Mart bag. The bank’s branch manager testified that the money recovered was the same money taken from the bank in the robbery. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
