Rogers v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00763-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-02-2004 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of cocaine - Harsh sentence - Reasonable doubt instructions - Peremptory challenges - Continuance Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-03-2003 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: SALE OF COCAINE, A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC, WITH FIFTEEN YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF SUPERVISED PROBATION. District Attorney: Rick Mitchell Case Number: 2002-0277 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Willie C. Rogers a/k/a Willie Rodgers |
PERCY STANFIELD
BEVERLY D. POOLE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: 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: | Sale of cocaine - Harsh sentence - Reasonable doubt instructions - Peremptory challenges - Continuance |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Rogers was found guilty of the sale of cocaine. He was sentenced to thirty years, with the last fifteen years suspended under prescribed conditions. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Harsh sentence Rogers argues that his sentence was unusually harsh for a first-time offender and that he was given such a harsh sentence as punishment for exercising his right to a trial by jury. Generally, sentencing is not subject to appellate review if it is within the limits prescribed by statute. A trial court is prohibited from imposing a heavier sentence because the defendant has exercised his constitutional right to trial by jury than that which was offered the defendant in the plea bargaining process. However, where the record reflects that the court remained aloof from the bargaining process or was unaware of the bargaining, the court does not err in sentencing a defendant to a greater sentence than that which was offered in the plea bargaining process. The sentence given to Rogers is within the acceptable range of the statute, and absent more, is not a constitutional violation. Issue 2: Reasonable doubt instructions Rogers argues that the court erred by denying two instructions regarding reasonable doubt. The court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without evidentiary foundation. One of the instructions was properly refused as repetitive. The other instruction was unclear. In addition, the instructions when read together and taken as a whole sufficiently address the issue raised by the defendant. Issue 3: Peremptory challenges Rogers argues that he was denied the right to a fair trial when the court accepted the State's reasons for two of its peremptory challenges. The reasons for striking the jurors was the age and marital status of one of the jurors and the relationship and knowledge of Rogers of the other juror. The judge did not err in determining that the prosecutor's reasons for the strikes were race-neutral. Issue 4: Continuance Rogers argues that the court erred in denying him a continuance of the trial due to the State's discovery violations, i.e., the State failed to show him a video which was to be played for the jury and the video shown to the jury was not an accurate depiction of the occurrence. However, the judge assisted Rogers by issuing process for his alleged witnesses. There is no indication that any of these persons had knowledge which reflected upon the guilt or innocence of Rogers. In the absence of such a showing, the court did not abuse its discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
