Cortez v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01374-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-01374-COA ; 2002-CT-01374-SCT ; 2002-CT-01374-SCT ; 2002-KA-01374-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-02-2003 Opinion Author: King, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of dwelling - Sufficiency of evidence - Suppression of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-19-2002 Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: BURGLARY OF A DWELLING: SENTENCED TO SERVE 25 YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER, DEFENDANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION District Attorney: Rick Mitchell Case Number: 13023 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Leslie J. Cortez |
DAN DUGGAN, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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: | Burglary of dwelling - Sufficiency of evidence - Suppression of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Leslie Cortez was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and was sentenced to twenty-five years as an habitual offender. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Cortez argues that the evidence does not support a conviction for burglary, because there was no forensic evidence to link him to prying open the front door, the gloves, or to the disarrayed clothing, and the State did not prove intent. The crime of burglary requires proof of an unauthorized entry (or breaking), and the intent to commit a crime after the unauthorized entry. Intent is an emotional operation of the mind and is usually shown by acts and declarations of the defendant coupled with facts and circumstances surrounding him at the time. Here, the element of unauthorized entry was established through the testimony of the victim, a witness who saw Cortez enter and exit the house, and a deputy who testified that Cortez admitted to being in the house. The intent to commit a crime after the unauthorized entry was established by the testimony of the victim who noticed that the drawers to her chest had been rifled and were in disarray. Issue 2: Suppression of evidence Cortez argues that the court erred by not suppressing the gloves which the victim found in her closet after returning to her home, because there was no forensic or testimonial evidence which linked the gloves to the burglary and their discovery a week after the burglary was too remote. The victim testified that she found the gloves in her closet a week after the burglary and the gloves did not belong to her. This testimony, while not connecting the gloves to Cortez, was sufficient to suggest it was more probable than not that a burglary had occurred and therefore was properly admitted. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
