Mitchell v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-00317-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-00317-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-21-2006 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of methamphetamine and precursor chemicals - Motion to suppress - Discovery violation Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Southwick and Roberts, JJ. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-23-2004 Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE: SENTENCED TO SERVE TWENTY-FOUR YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH FOURTEEN YEARS SUSPENDED, LEAVING TEN YEARS TO SERVE. CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE PRECURSOR CHEMICALS: SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 02-CR-090-LE-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Scott Keith Mitchell |
WILLIAM MITCHELL MORAN |
||
| 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 methamphetamine and precursor chemicals - Motion to suppress - Discovery violation |
| Summary of the Facts: | Scott Mitchell was convicted for possession of methamphetamine and precursor chemicals, for which he was sentenced to a total of forty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Motion to suppress Mitchell argues that the court erred when it overruled his motion to suppress the search warrant because there was insufficient probable cause and the issuing judge was not detached and neutral. The magistrate is required to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. The record supports the contention that police received several tips from multiple confidential informants concerning Mitchell’s involvement in illegal drug activity. While neither the search warrant nor the affidavit securing it appear in the record on appeal, it seems likely that the veracity and basis of knowledge of these informants was established in procuring the warrant. There was additionally testimony that officers patrolling the road on which Mitchell lived detected a strong chemical smell typically associated with methamphetamine production, and that the officers believed the smell was originating from the Mitchell residence. Considering the totality of the circumstances, there was a substantial basis for the magistrate’s determination of probable cause. Mitchell neglected to object at trial to the neutrality and detachment of the judge issuing the search warrant. As such, he is procedurally barred from raising the issue for the first time on appeal. In addition, the mere fact that the son of the judge who issued the warrant is the Leake County Sheriff’s Department’s only investigator does not suggest that she was acting as an adjunct law enforcement officer. Issue 2: Discovery violations Mitchell argues that the court erred by allowing the State to enter into evidence an oral confession made by Mitchell while en route to the Leake County Correctional Facility, because his trial counsel had no knowledge of the confession until the day of trial. The record reveals conflicting testimony as to when the State informed Mitchell’s counsel of the oral confession. As sufficient evidence existed in the record to support the ruling of the trial judge as to this issue, he did not commit an abuse of discretion in admitting the oral confession into evidence. Mitchell further argues that the confession was elicited in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), but the record reveals testimony by officers that the statement was made spontaneously and without elicitation from the law enforcement officers. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
