Jamison v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01209-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-01-2011 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine - Amendment to indictment - Section 41-29-139(c)(1)(A) - URCCC 7.09 - Increase in severity of potential sentence - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Dissenting Author : Irving, P.J. Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J., concurs in result only without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-22-2010 Appealed from: Tunica County Circuit Court Judge: Charles E. Webster Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF AT LEAST TWO GRAMS BUT LESS THAN TEN GRAMS OF COCAINE AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS, WITH SIX YEARS TO SERVE AND FOUR YEARS SUSPENDED, IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Case Number: 2009-0059 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Cedric Jamison |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF
LESLIE S. LEE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD 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 cocaine - Amendment to indictment - Section 41-29-139(c)(1)(A) - URCCC 7.09 - Increase in severity of potential sentence - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cedric Jamison was convicted of cocaine possession. The circuit court sentenced Jamison to ten years (six to serve and four suspended). Jamison appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Amendment to indictment The grand jury originally charged Jamison with possessing .1 gram or less of cocaine under section 41-29-139(c)(1)(A). Based on Jamison’s testimony that he possessed “about two to three grams of cocaine,” at the close of the evidence, the circuit court—over Jamison’s objection—allowed the State to amend his indictment. The amended indictment charged Jamison with possessing a larger quantity of cocaine—between two and ten grams. This amendment resulted in a significant increase in the severity of Jamison’s potential sentence. URCCC 7.09 provides that emphasizes that an amendment shall be allowed only if the defendant is afforded a fair opportunity to present a defense and is not unfairly surprised. This means that the defendant must be afforded due process of law and be given fair notice of the nature and cause of the accusation. If the amendment either materially alters facts which are the essence of the offense on the face of the indictment as it originally stood or materially alters a defense to the indictment as it originally stood so as to prejudice the defendant’s case, then the amendment is substantive, and approval by the grand jury is required. The State argues that the quantity involved in a drug-possession charge only relates to the sentence and is never an element of the crime itself. It also suggests that amending the charged quantity in a case involving possession of a controlled substance always concerns merely a matter of form, not substance. Mississippi courts have not squarely addressed this issue. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has explained that in considering whether drug quantity must be pled in an indictment and proved as an element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, “[t]he relevant inquiry is now whether a factual determination is involved, and whether that determination increases the sentence beyond the maximum statutory penalty.” If the government seeks enhanced penalties based on the amount of drugs, the quantity must be stated in the indictment and submitted to a jury for a finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Numerous other federal circuit courts have followed suit. Here, Jamison entered the courtroom charged with possessing .1 gram or less of cocaine and facing a one-year minimum sentence and a four-year maximum. The court authorized amendment to the indictment materially altered the originally pled facts by increasing the quantity charged to “between 2 and 10 grams,” resulting in a potential term of incarceration four times as harsh—a minimum of four but not more than sixteen years. Jamison’s potential fine also increased from $10,000 to $250,000. Jamison received a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment (six years to serve with four years suspended). His sentence exceeded the statutory maximum under the original charge (four years). Thus, Jamison’s sentence is vacated and the case remanded for resentencing under the lesser penalties prescribed for possessing less than .1 gram of cocaine. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Jamison argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for cocaine possession. The proof that Jamison possessed a detectable amount of cocaine is overwhelming. Jamison made clear that he was familiar with cocaine. He described to the jury the drug’s narcotic effect. And he admitted on the witness stand that he possessed at least two grams of the substance and gave some to another person. Though Jamison challenges the corroborative evidence surrounding his admissions, the general corpus delicti requirement of independent proof applies only to out-of-court statements. Here, Jamison’s multiple admissions about his cocaine possession came during his testimony from the witness stand at trial. And a defendant who elects to testify is just as competent to establish the corpus delicti as any other witness. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to sustain Jamison’s conviction for possession of less than .1 gram of cocaine. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
