Ales v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-01734-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-21-2006 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of marijuana - Re-sentencing - Chain of custody Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Guilty Plea Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-30-2004 Appealed from: Pontotoc County Circuit Court Judge: Sharion R. Aycock Disposition: DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF SALE OF ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE (MARIJUANA) AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS (FOUR YEARS SUSPENDED) IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND FINE OF $1,500 District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR03-115 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | William Daniel Ales |
WILLIAM C. STENNETT |
||
| 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: | Sale of marijuana - Re-sentencing - Chain of custody |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Ales pled guilty to sale of marijuana, and was initially sentenced to twenty years, with twelve years of the sentence to be suspended. After testing positive for marijuana, Ales was re-sentenced to twenty years, with only four years suspended. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Ales argues that the re-sentencing was illegal on double jeopardy, due process, and cruel and unusual punishment grounds. A circuit court has inherent authority to alter a sentence until a regular term of court expires. Here, the re-sentencing was within the jurisdiction of the court, since it was done before the expiration of the same term of the court. Ales also argues that there was insufficient testimony before the court to authenticate the results of Ales’ drug test. In order to prove a chain of custody error, Ales must prove that there was tampering or substitution of evidence. Ales has presented no evidence to overcome the discretion that is granted to the trial court when deciding whether or not a certain piece of evidence has been authenticated properly. Both the officer who received the results of the test and the technician who ran the test testified at the re-sentencing. There was enough evidence presented for the court to find that the chain of custody had been properly maintained, and the court did not abuse its discretion in so finding. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
