Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00442-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00442-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-26-2004 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute - Sufficiency of evidence - Constructive possession - Illegal search - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Myers, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J. Dissenting Author : King, C.J. Dissent Joined By : Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Denied Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-15-2003 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: THE DEFENDANT WAS FOUND GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF CRACK COCAINE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 390-02 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Willie Edward Williams, Jr. a/k/a Junebug |
WILLIAM F. VICK |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS |
|
|
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 with intent to distribute - Sufficiency of evidence - Constructive possession - Illegal search - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Williams, Jr. was convicted of the crime of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to serve, as a habitual offender, a term of life. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Williams argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. The State was unable to prove that Williams at any time physically possessed the crack cocaine that resulted in his conviction, and both parties agree that the case against Williams is based on circumstantial evidence. Where the premises upon which contraband is found is not in the exclusive possession of the accused, the accused is entitled to acquittal, absent some competent evidence connecting him with the contraband. When the police stopped Williams, he was on a city street, and the aluminum foil that contained the crack cocaine was on the ground of a city street. Williams argues that no one could be in exclusive control of a city street. However, the State has demonstrated that the arrest occurred early in the morning, when few people would be present on a public street, and the length of time between Williams fleeing the scene of the accident and the police locating the aluminum foil was very short, with little opportunity for anyone to alter the contents of the aluminum foil that had been located. Especially important is the fact that two eyewitnesses saw Williams go into his car and retrieve something. While no single factor standing alone establishes that Williams had constructive possession of the cocaine, the evidence, taken as a whole, is sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict. Issue 2: Illegal search Williams argues that the search of the area in which he was taken into custody, the opening of the aluminum foil found by the officers, and the search of his vehicle were unconstitutional. Generally one does not reasonably expect to keep private that which can be seen by the public. Not only is there no expectation of privacy on a public street, but Williams abandoned the aluminum foil package when he discarded and therefore deprived himself of any right to privacy. With regard to Williams's argument that the police should not have been allowed to bring a drug dog to sniff his car, Williams had no reasonable expectation of privacy since he had abandoned the car. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Williams argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not filing substantive pre-trial motions. However, he fails to identify which pre-trial motions his trial counsel should have filed. He also argues that his trial counsel did not object to the introduction of several items of evidence that should have been excluded. As already discussed, these items of evidence were admissible. He argues that his trial counsel failed to request a jury instruction regarding dominion and control and proximity. However, his trial counsel requested, and the court granted, an instruction stating the law of constructive possession which contains the essence of the standard of proof required to convict under a constructive possession theory. Williams argues that his trial counsel failed to call any witnesses on his behalf. Williams provided no facts to support these accusations and no method by which these accusations would have been admitted at trial. Williams argues that his counsel failed to offer as proof any videotape from the Silver Star Casino which may have given an explanation as to why Williams was in possession of such a large amount of cash. Even if Williams did have a legitimate reason for carrying a large amount of cash, there remained ample evidence to show that Williams had constructive possession of the crack cocaine. Williams argues that his trial counsel erred in not asking the officers whether or when Williams was informed of his constitutional rights. Whether Williams received his Miranda rights is irrelevant in this case because he was never interrogated while in police custody. Williams argues that his trial counsel counseled Williams not to testify on his own behalf because the State might have questioned him about prior convictions. However, Williams knew he had the right to testify and the likely risks of not testifying outweighed the possible advantages and opted to forego this option. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
