Hales v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-02084-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-02084-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-18-2006 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of controlled substance - Mistrial - Right to a meaningful appeal - M.R.A.P. 10 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Cobb, P.J. and Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-24-2004 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: Hales was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court and found guilty of the illegal possession of cocaine. The circuit court sentenced Hales to a sixteen-year sentence with four years suspended. District Attorney: Anthony J. Buckley Case Number: 2004-96-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Donald Hales |
DANIEL KYLE ROBERTSON |
||
| 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 controlled substance - Mistrial - Right to a meaningful appeal - M.R.A.P. 10 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Donald Hales was convicted for possession of a controlled substance. He was given a sixteen-year sentence with four years suspended. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Mistrial Prior to commencement of the trial, Hales’ counsel moved to exclude any items other than the cocaine that was recovered in Hales’ apartment, particularly some marijuana. During the direct examination of one of the narcotics officers, the prosecution admitted a color photograph into evidence which depicts a razor blade, a cell phone, a bottle of beer, a bag of cocaine, and what appeared to be a small plastic bag of marijuana. Hales argues that this color photograph clearly violated the pretrial order because of the marijuana it portrays. This issue is barred from consideration because defense counsel failed to contemporaneously and timely object to the admission of the photograph. In addition, there is no evidence in the record that Hales’ ever made a motion for mistrial. Despite the prosecution’s actions in this case, which border on prejudicing the defendant, the Court cannot consider reversing the ruling of a trial court when the alleged ruling is not in the record. Issue 2: Right to a meaningful appeal Hales argues he has been denied the right to a meaningful appeal because of substantial omissions in the record, i.e., the court reporter’s failure to transcribe five bench conferences as well as a number of other courtroom utterances. Hales also did not follow the proper procedure for correcting the alleged omissions in the record as set out in M.R.A.P. 10. Moreover, there is no evidence that Hales attempted to ensure a complete record. Therefore, Hales is procedurally barred from asserting this assignment of error. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Hales argues that taking all of the credible evidence in the case at bar as true, reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only have acquitted him of the possession of cocaine. At trial the State demonstrated Hales was the resident of the apartment searched by narcotics officers, pursuant to a valid search warrant. In addition, the State showed that 5.71 grams of cocaine, as well as razor blades containing a cocaine residue were discovered in the Hales’ residence. Hales denied any knowledge of the cocaine recovered, and insinuated his girlfriend’s son may have actually owned the drugs. Based on this evidence, a reasonable juror could not have arrived at a contrary verdict, as the facts are sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
