Foxworth v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01192-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01192-COA ; 2010-CT-01192-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-29-2011 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of controlled substance - Motion to suppress - Strip search - Habitual offender status - Section 99-19-83 - Peremptory challenges - URCCC 10.01 - Sufficiency of evidence - Excessive sentence - Section 41-29-150(g) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Barnes, J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion Concurs in Result Only: Russell, 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: 06-23-2010 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Roger T. Clark Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B2401-2006-25 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jason Bernard Foxworth a/k/a Jason Benard Foxworth |
KEITH PISARICH |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
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 controlled substance - Motion to suppress - Strip search - Habitual offender status - Section 99-19-83 - Peremptory challenges - URCCC 10.01 - Sufficiency of evidence - Excessive sentence - Section 41-29-150(g) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jason Foxworth was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced as a habitual offender to life, without eligibility for parole or probation. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Motion to suppress Foxworth argues the circuit court improperly denied his motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search incident to his arrest. He argues that he was subjected to a strip search in violation of his constitutional rights. In a search incident to arrest, an officer is justified in searching not only for weapons but also for evidence that might be easily destroyed. There are certain limitations regarding the use of strip searches. A strip search has been defined as any exposure or observation of a portion of a person's body where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A strip search has also been defined as the removal of the arrestee's clothing for inspection of the under clothes and/or body. In this case, the officer reached inside Foxworth’s pants and undergarments to remove an item he believed to be a controlled substance. At no point was Foxworth forced to remove any clothing. There is also no indication that any part of his body was ever exposed to the public. He remained fully clothed during the entire search. Because no strip search occurred and the search incident to arrest was appropriate, there is no error. Issue 2: Habitual offender status Foxworth argues his status as a habitual offender is invalid because the offense date of his second conviction occurred after the offense date in the instant case. There is no requirement that a prior felony conviction used to enhance a sentence must have been entered before the crime occurred for which the sentence is to be pronounced. The only date requirement in section 99-19-83 is that the enhancing conviction precede the new conviction. Here, Foxworth was previously convicted in December 1997 and November 2007, both of which occurred before the June 2010 conviction in this case. Issue 3: Peremptory challenges Foxworth argues the circuit court erred by limiting him to six peremptory challenges during the jury venire. He argues that under UCCCR 10.01, he should have been allowed twelve peremptory challenges because he faced life in prison due to his status as a habitual offender. The indictment charges Foxworth with possession of a controlled substance, which is not a category of offenses for which one is entitled to twelve peremptory challenges. While Foxworth did face life imprisonment, he was only subject to this sentence because of his status as a habitual offender. Case law clearly establishes that the possibility of life imprisonment as a habitual offender does not entitle one to twelve peremptory challenges under Rule 10.01. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Foxworth argues the circuit court erred by denying his motion because the State failed to provide evidence that Foxworth “knowingly” possessed cocaine. In order to convict a defendant of possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove he had actual or constructive possession of the controlled substance, coupled with knowledge of the presence of the drug. In this case, the jury’s verdict did not present an unconscionable injustice, and the State provided ample evidence to support a conviction. The jury heard the testimony of the officer who described the events of that night and his search of Foxworth. He also testified regarding the bag of cocaine found in Foxworth’s pants. The jury also heard the testimony of Timothy Gross from the Mississippi State Crime Laboratory. Gross testified that the bag found on Foxworth contained approximately 7.6 grams of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the State established Foxworth did knowingly possess cocaine. Issue 5: Excessive sentence Foxworth argues his sentence as a habitual offender of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole or probation based on a conviction of possession of a controlled substance violates section 41-29-150(g). Because the sentence imposed on Foxworth is within the guidelines set out by the Legislature in section 99-19-83, there is no error. While it is the Legislature’s intent to rehabilitate those addicted to controlled substances, the Legislature, in enacting section 99-19-83, also intended to prevent recidivism of those unable to be rehabilitated. It was surely not the intent of the Legislature in enacting section 41-29-150(g) to allow defendants to escape habitual-offender status simply because their third conviction is a drug offense. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
