Hatten v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-02241-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-26-2006 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Amendment of indictment - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-06-2004 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A CONVICTED FELON AND SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF THREE YEARS, WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE, AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: ANTHONY J. BUCKLEY Case Number: 2004-31-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Willie Earl Hatten, Sr. |
MICHAEL DUANE MITCHELL |
||
| 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: | Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Amendment of indictment - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Hatten, Sr. was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to three years, as a habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Amendment of indictment Hatten argues that the indictment charging him was fatally defective because it alleged an incorrect date for one of his prior felony convictions. In order to be sufficient, an indictment must be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and must fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. In this case, the indictment alleged the crimes exactly, along with their respective cause numbers, and simply contained an incorrect date. Hatten was clearly on notice and informed about the prior convictions that the State intended to use in order to prove his habitual offender status. Furthermore, because the change of the date in the indictment did nothing to prejudice Hatten in his defense and was not material to the charges against him, the court was correct in allowing the State to amend the indictment to reflect the correct date. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Although Hatten argues that the State offered no eyewitnesses to what happened, that is not true. An officer clearly observed Hatten possessing a firearm, in violation of the law. It was not necessary for the State to show that Hatten was firing the firearm. Hatten’s possession of the firearm and his status as a convicted felon is sufficient to violate the law. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
