Carlisle v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-01764-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-20-2006 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of marihuana with intent to sell - Suppression of evidence - Chain of custody - Prior bad acts - Swearing in jury - Jury selection procedures - Consecutive sentences - Section 99-19-21(2) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Roberts, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-16-2004 Appealed from: Wayne County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF OVER ONE OUNCE OF MARIHUANA (193.1 GRAMS) WITH INTENT TO SELL AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND ORDERED TO PAY A $10,000 FINE. District Attorney: BILBO MITCHELL Case Number: 04-15-K |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Trevor Vashon Carlisle |
LESLIE D. ROUSSELL |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
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 marihuana with intent to sell - Suppression of evidence - Chain of custody - Prior bad acts - Swearing in jury - Jury selection procedures - Consecutive sentences - Section 99-19-21(2) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Trevor Carlisle was convicted of possession of over one ounce of marihuana with intent to sell and was sentenced to ten years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Suppression of evidence Carlisle argues that the lack of probable cause makes the stop and subsequent search of his vehicle a violation of both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 23 of the Mississippi Constitution and that the marihuana taken from his vehicle should have been suppressed. An investigative stop of a suspect may be made so long as an officer has a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that the person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a felony or so long as the officers have some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. In this case, the officers received information from Brown that she had been purchasing marihuana from an individual she knew as “Trouble.” The officers then requested that Brown make a phone call to “Trouble” to arrange a purchase of marihuana. The sale was arranged for a specific location and at a specific time. Brown informed the officers about the vehicle that “Trouble” would be driving, describing it as a “gray four-door car with a different color driver’s side fender and heavily tinted windows.” The location, an abandoned bridge, was staked out by officers who noticed a vehicle matching the description of “Trouble’s” car approach the area. As Carlisle’s vehicle, which matched exactly the description of “Trouble’s” car, approached the abandoned bridge, it was stopped by an officer who recognized Carlisle and knew that he was on probation for a prior conviction. At this time, the officers had sufficient probable cause to believe that Carlisle was in possession of marihuana. The officers further strengthened their case for probable cause by bringing in a certified drug sniffing dog after Carlisle refused to give his consent to the search. Only after the dog gave an alert did the officers initiate a search of Carlisle’s vehicle, which revealed 193.1 grams of marihuana. Issue 2: Chain of custody Carlisle argues that the court erred in allowing an officer to testify about marihuana that other officers discovered in Carlisle’s vehicle, because a valid chain of custody has to be established. There is no requirement for the State to produce every person who handled the object, nor to account for every moment of every day. The burden is on Carlisle to prove that tampering or substitution of the evidence took place. Carlisle has offered no proof of either a break in the chain of custody or any tampering with the evidence at issue. Furthermore, the officer testified that the marihuana discovered by the other officers was uncovered in his presence and immediately turned over to him. Thus, there was sufficient evidence presented for the trial court to find that the chain of custody had been properly maintained. Issue 3: Prior bad acts Carlisle argues that the trial court improperly allowed the prosecution to question Brown about how many times she had previously purchased drugs from him and about how much marihuana her cousin had previously attempted to purchase from him. This issue is procedurally barred because it was not properly raised in the trial court. Issue 4: Swearing in jury Carlisle argues that the court committed reversible error by failing to administer the petit jury oath to the jury. Carlisle is procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal because he failed to make a contemporaneous objection at trial, did not raise this issue in his motion for a new trial, or make an argument to this court under the plain error doctrine. In addition, Carlisle has failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the trial judge administered the oath to the jury. Issue 5: Jury selection procedures Carlisle argues that the court erred in moving fourteen potential jurors to the end of the venire list so the likelihood of them being selected in this trial would be substantially reduced. Because Carlisle failed to raise any problems or concerns that he may have had with the jury’s composition before it was empaneled, he has waived his right to complain about this issue on appeal. Issue 6: Consecutive sentences Carlisle argues that the judge erred in ordering him to serve his two sentences consecutively. Carlisle was on five years probation for a previous drug-related offense when he was arrested for marihuana possession with intent to sell, resulting in revocation of his probation. Therefore, the court’s discretion in sentencing Carlisle was controlled by section 99-19-21(2) which requires Carlisle to serve the present sentence consecutive to his probation revocation sentence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
