Passman v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KP-02364-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-02364-SCT ; 2004-KP-02364-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-31-2006 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute & Possession of a firearm while intending to distribute - Illegal search - Sufficiency of evidence - Cruel and unusual punishment - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Southwick and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-08-2004 Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: JURY VERDICT OF GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE WHILE IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, AND SENTENCED OF SIXTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, A TWO MILLION DOLLAR FINE AND FIFTY DOLLARS RESTITUTION TO THE MISSISSIPPI BUREAU OF NARCOTICS Case Number: 04-312-KB |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Robert A. Passman |
ROBERT A. PASSMAN (PRO SE) |
||
| 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 methamphetamine with intent to distribute & Possession of a firearm while intending to distribute - Illegal search - Sufficiency of evidence - Cruel and unusual punishment - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Robert Passman was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and with possession of a firearm while intending to distribute. He was sentenced to an enhanced sixty year sentence and a two million dollar fine and fifty dollars restitution. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Illegal search Passman argues that he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure, and that the informant was not reliable to establish probable cause for a search warrant. The judge issuing the search warrant has to make a practical common sense determination given all the circumstances based upon the hearsay of the person supplying the information. Even though this informant had never been used by these agents previously, the trial court stated that the reliability was confirmed by the recorded telephone conversation. Therefore, there was probable cause to issue a search warrant for Passman’s home. Passman also argues that his arrest was illegal. Passman admitted to the other agents that he had paraphernalia in his home. Since that of itself is in violation of the Mississippi Code, the agents had enough probable cause to place him under arrest. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Passman argues that there was no evidence shown that he would sell any drugs to the confidential informant and that there was no evidence to prove that Passman had possession of the firearm. The State provided testimony regarding the findings of the search at Passman’s home. The items found such as finger scales, police scanner, and foil were presented to the jury for them to decide whether or not these items represent distribution of drugs. Therefore, the verdict reached by the jury is consistent with the weight of the evidence presented by the State in this action. Issue 3: Cruel and unusual punishment Passman argues that his sentence is disproportionate to the crime committed and amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. A sentence that does not exceed the maximum term set by statute cannot be disturbed upon appeal. Passman’s sentence does not exceed the maximum statutory term. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Passman argues that his trial counsel failed to investigate, advocate and effectively defend him. Since the record was not clear in order to determine whether Passman’s counsel was deficient, this issue is affirmed without prejudice so that Passman may pursue this matter under the state’s post-conviction relief statute. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
