Dixon, et al. v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-01582-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-01582-SCT ; 2004-CT-01582-SCT ; 2004-KA-01582-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-06-2006 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Value of cocaine - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-21-2004 Appealed from: Sunflower County Circuit Court Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF COCAINE WITH INTENT TO SELL; SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS EACH IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND FINED $500,000 EACH. District Attorney: JOYCE IVY CHILES Case Number: 2004-0049-K |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Tracy Dixon and Jerry Ford a/k/a Jerry Lee Ford |
GLENN S. SWARTZFAGER |
||
| 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: | Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Value of cocaine - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tracy Dixon and Jerry Ford were convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Both were sentenced to thirty years and ordered to pay a fine of $500,000. They appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Other crimes’ evidence The appellants argue that the prosecution’s reference to the undercover sale on the morning of August 22 was evidence of another bad act or crime, introduced in violation of M.R.E. 404(b). They also argue that the court erred by failing to conduct an on-the-record balancing analysis pursuant to M.R.E. 403 and in allowing a defective limiting instruction. Whenever 404(b) evidence is offered and there is an objection which is overruled, the objection shall be deemed an invocation of the right to M.R.E. 403 balancing analysis and a limiting instruction. In the present case, the court was not on notice that the defendants were making a Rule 404(b) objection. When the prosecution first broached the topic of the undercover sale, defense counsel objected to evidence of the sale only on the ground that it was not within the officer’s personal knowledge. Because Ford and Dixon failed to make a timely, specific objection on 404(b) grounds, this issue is procedurally barred. With regard to the limiting instruction, while defense counsel objected to the initial draft of the instruction, an amended instruction was given to the jury. As there was no objection to the amended instruction, this issue is also procedurally barred. Issue 2: Value of cocaine Ford and Dixon argue that the court erred in allowing two officers to testify to the value and packaging of the cocaine without first being qualified as expert witnesses. It is clear from the record that this issue is not properly before the court, as it was not preserved by a specific objection. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence The appellants argue that it was physically and legally impossible for both Dixon and Ford to each possess twenty grams of cocaine as alleged in the indictment. Looking to the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Ford and Dixon were in constructive possession of the entire twenty grams of cocaine in question. It is clear from the evidence presented that both defendants were aware of the presence and character of the cocaine while in the car together, and that Ford and Dixon were intentionally in possession of the cocaine. While neither party had actual, physical possession of the entire twenty grams, the facts of this case suggest that Ford and Dixon intended to possess the entire amount in order to distribute it. The State produced evidence that one of the defendants sold cocaine to an informant on the day of the crime; furthermore, a $100 bill used in that sale was found in the stack of money left by Ford in the wooded area. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Ford and Dixon argue that they were deprived of the right to effective assistance of counsel. Considering the evidence against Ford and Dixon, the court cannot find that, but for trial counsel’s errors, a different result would likely have resulted. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
