Harris v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00676-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00676-COA ; 2010-CT-00676-SCT ; 2010-CT-00676-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-04-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Aggravated assault & Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Illegal sentence - Section 97-37-37(2) - Section 97-37-5 - Double jeopardy - Expert testimony - Prior convictions Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Russell, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Barnes and Maxwell, JJ., concur in part and in the result without separate written opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-21-2010 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO TWENTY YEARS AND TO TEN YEARS AS AN ENHANCED PENALTY PURSUANT TO MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED SECTION 97-37-37(2) (SUPP. 2011), WITH THE TENYEARS’ ENHANCED PENALTY TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN COUNT I; AND COUNT II, POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A CONVICTED FELON, AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO TEN YEARS, WITH THE SENTENCE IN COUNT II TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE TEN-YEARS’ ENHANCED PENALTY, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION Case Number: 2009-0075 |
|
| Note: | On October 18, 2012, the Supreme Court found that because the minimum sentence available for Harris's habitual status exceeded ten years, it vacated Harris’s sentences and reversed and remanded to the Circuit Court for re-sentencing in consideration of the holding that Miss. Code Ann. Sec. 97-37-37(2) did not apply. The Supreme Court's opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO79676.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Charles Harris |
HUNTER N. AIKENS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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: | Aggravated assault & Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Illegal sentence - Section 97-37-37(2) - Section 97-37-5 - Double jeopardy - Expert testimony - Prior convictions |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charles Harris was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court sentenced him to twenty years for aggravated assault. The circuit court then imposed a ten-year sentence enhancement under section 97-37-37(2) for the use or display of a firearm by a convicted felon during the commission of the aggravated assault. The circuit court also sentenced Harris to ten years for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Harris appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Illegal sentence Harris argues that the ten-year sentence imposed under section 97-37-37(2) is illegal. He specifically argues that section 97-37-37(2) is inapplicable because “a greater minimum sentence [is] otherwise provided for by [another] provision of law . . . .” Harris contends that his habitual-offender status provided for a “greater minimum sentence” because it required that he receive the maximum sentence for aggravated assault–twenty years. He also argues that the sentence constitutes double jeopardy because he received separate sentences for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under section 97-37-5 and for the use or display of a firearm during the commission of a felony under section 97-37-37(2). Harris cannot argue that section 97-37-37(2) does not apply because “a greater minimum sentence” was provided for by way of the habitual-offender statute. To hold otherwise would thwart the purpose of the firearm-enhancement statute. If the Court were to accept Harris’s interpretation of the “except” clause found in section 97-37-37(2), the habitual offender who committed aggravated assault with a firearm would receive the same twenty-year sentence as the habitual offender who used only his fists. Given that the overarching purpose of sentence enhancements is deterrence, our Legislature surely did not intend such a result. Harris’s argument that the ten-year sentence imposed under section 97-37-37(2) constitutes double jeopardy is also without merit. The Court has previously rejected an argument that section 97-37-37(2), when applied to a charge of aggravated assault, constitutes double jeopardy. Issue 2: Expert testimony Harris argues that the circuit court erred in refusing to allow the emergency-room physician who treated the victim to testify regarding the common side effects of the drugs found in the victim’s system. A witness is qualified to give expert testimony when the witness possesses peculiar knowledge or information regarding relevant subject matter that is not possessed by the layman. Here, the circuit court erred in refusing to allow the physician’s testimony regarding the common side effects of cocaine, benzodiazepines, and marijuana. The physician testified that he had three years of experience as an emergency-room physician and had treated between two hundred and three hundred patients. Additionally, he testified that he was familiar with the common side effects of cocaine, benzodiazepines, and marijuana. Based on his medical training and experience, the physician was qualified to testify regarding the common side effects of the drugs found in the victim’s system. However, the proffered testimony would not have changed the outcome of Harris’s case. The victim admitted in her testimony that she had smoked crack cocaine while she was in the car with Harris. However, based on the physician’s proffered testimony, the victim’s cocaine use would not have impaired her ability to identify the person who shot her. Thus, any error in limiting the physician’s testimony was harmless. Issue 3: Prior convictions Harris argues that the circuit court erred in admitting evidence of his prior convictions despite a valid stipulation. Harris’s attorney initially stated that he had no objection to Harris’s police statement being played at trial. Harris’s attorney later objected to the portion of the tape related to Harris’s prior convictions after it had been heard by the jury. While the State agreed to stipulate that Harris was a convicted felon, the plain language of the stipulation did not preclude the State from presenting evidence of Harris’s prior convictions. Furthermore, any prejudice stemming from the admission of the taped statement was alleviated by the circuit court’s granting a limiting instruction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
