Thompson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-02061-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-02061-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-03-2012 Opinion Author: Russell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of methamphetamine & Possession of precursor chemicals with intent to manufacture methamphetamine - Search warrant - Probable cause - Admission of confession - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Weight of evidence - Section 41-29-313(1)(b) - Sentencing order Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-10-2010 Appealed from: Neshoba County Circuit Court Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE, AND SENTENCED TO SIXTEEN YEARS, AND COUNT II, POSSESSION OF PRECURSOR CHEMICALS WITH INTENT TO MANUFACTURE METHAMPHETAMINE, AND SENTENCED AS A SECOND DRUG OFFENDER AND A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO SIXTY YEARS, TO RUN CONCURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR REDUCTION OR SUSPENSION OF THE SENTENCE District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 09-CR-0048-NS-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Lewis Henry Thompson a/k/a Lewis Henry Thompson Sr. |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS JR., P. SHAWN HARRIS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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 methamphetamine & Possession of precursor chemicals with intent to manufacture methamphetamine - Search warrant - Probable cause - Admission of confession - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Weight of evidence - Section 41-29-313(1)(b) - Sentencing order |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lewis Thompson was convicted of possession of methamphetamine (Count I) and possession of precursor chemicals with intent to manufacture methamphetamine (Count II). He was sentenced to sixteen years without the possibility of parole, suspension, probation or reduction on Count I and sixty years without the possibility of parole, suspension, probation or reduction on Count II. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Search warrant A search warrant is validly issued when based upon probable cause. Probable cause arises when the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge, or of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to justify a man of average caution in the belief that a crime has been committed and that a particular individual committed it. Probable cause exists where it is based on information reasonably leading an officer to believe that then and there contraband or evidence material to a criminal investigation would be found. The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision based on all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and the basis of the knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information. Veracity may be established by a statement of the affiant that a confidential informant has given credible information in the past. In this case, there was substantial evidence to support the justice court judge’s finding of probable cause to issue the search warrant. Under the totality of the circumstances, there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that methamphetamine was being used and manufactured at Smith’s residence. The sheriff testified that the confidential informant, who had provided information that he/she saw methamphetamine being manufactured and for sale at a residence, had provided reliable information in the past, which had led to arrests and convictions. Issue 2: Admission of confession Thompson argues that he was illegally arrested, and as a result, his confession should have been inadmissible under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. However, Thompson fails to argue how or why his arrest was illegal. Under M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6), his argument is procedurally barred. Issue 3: Weight of evidence Thompson does not dispute his possession-of-methamphetamine conviction since he admitted the methamphetamine was his. He instead argues his conviction of possession of precursor chemicals with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence because he had no ownership or dominion over the realty on which the precursors were found and made no admissions about it being his. However, the sheriff testified that Thompson admitted “cooking” the methamphetamine. Further, officers recovered several precursor drugs and chemicals, including cold medicine (ephedrine), icee hot (ammonium nitrate), drain cleaner (sodium hydroxide), liquid fire (sulfuric acid), and camp fuel (hexanes, heptanes), all of which are prohibited under section 41-29-313(1)(b). Thus, the verdict is not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Issue 4: Sentencing order At the sentencing hearing, the circuit court orally sentenced Thompson to eight years for Count I and twenty-five years for Count II, to be served consecutively. Four days later and prior to the end of the term of court, the circuit court entered a written order sentencing Thompson to sixteen years for Count I and sixty years for Count II, to run concurrently. Thompson argues that the oral sentence should control. However, a written sentencing order controls over a prior oral pronouncement of a sentence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
