Young v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01354-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01354-COA ; 2010-CT-01354-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-06-2011 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery & Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Sufficiency of evidence - Deadly weapon - Section 97-37-5(1) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-05-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Malcolm Harrison Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, ARMED ROBBERY, AND SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS AND COUNT II, POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A CONVICTED FELON, AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCE IN COUNT I, ALL AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION Case Number: 10-160CRH |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Amir Young |
LESLIE S. LEE, BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD |
|
|
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: | Armed robbery & Possession of firearm by convicted felon - Sufficiency of evidence - Deadly weapon - Section 97-37-5(1) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Amir Young was convicted of armed robbery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Young was sentenced to thirty years on Count I and ten years on Count II with the sentence in Count II to run concurrently with the sentence in Count I, as a habitual offender, without eligibility for parole or probation. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Young argues that the object or gun-like object introduced at trial was not a deadly weapon for purposes of the elements of armed robbery. There was testimony the gun was complete at the time of the robbery. Further, there is no requirement that the “deadly weapon” be introduced at trial. A pistol has been judicially declared to be a ‘deadly weapon’ without proof that it is loaded or presently capable of committing a violent injury. Young then questions whether there was proof of fear as is statutorily required. The fear element does not require the victim to be frightened or terrified, but it is fulfilled if the victim expects or anticipates that personal injury may result if he does not follow the assailant’s instructions made while threatening the use of a deadly weapon. Young argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Section 97-37-5(1) does not require that the gun be operable. In addition, there is no dispute that Young is a convicted felon. Therefore, this issue is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
