Boyd v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-KA-01816-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-01816-COA ; 2010-CT-01816-SCT ; 2010-CT-01816-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-30-2013

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-22-2012
Opinion Author: Carlton, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Sale of marijuana - Continuance - Excessive sentence - Section 41-29-139(b)(1) - Section 41-29-142 - Section 41-29-147 - Amendment to indictment
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY
Appealed from Court of Appeals

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-07-2010
Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court
Judge: Samac Richardson
Disposition: CONVICTED OF THE SALE OF MARIJUANA, A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, WITHIN ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FEET OF A BUILDING OR OUTBUILDING OF CANTON ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL IN MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, OR WITHIN ONE THOUSAND FEET OF THE REAL PROPERTY OF CANTON ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL, AS A SUBSEQUENT DRUG OFFENDER , AND SENTENCED TO ONE HUNDRED TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, TO BE RELEASED AFTER SIXTY YEARS, AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION
District Attorney: Michael Guest
Case Number: 2010-0358

Note: On May 30, 2013, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court's opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO84134.pdf .

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Dwayne Boyd




ALI MUHAMMAD SHAMSIDDEEN



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE  

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 marijuana - Continuance - Excessive sentence - Section 41-29-139(b)(1) - Section 41-29-142 - Section 41-29-147 - Amendment to indictment

Summary of the Facts: Dwayne Boyd was convicted of the sale of marijuana, greater than thirty grams but less than one kilogram, within 1,500 feet of a school or within 1,000 feet of the real property of a school. The court sentenced Boyd as a subsequent drug offender to 120 years, with sixty years to serve and five years of supervised post-release supervision. Boyd appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Continuance Boyd argues that the trial court’s denial of his motion for a continuance deprived him of the right to a fair trial, and that the trial court erred in concluding that he voluntarily chose to represent himself. Boyd acknowledges that he failed to file a written motion for a continuance; thus, he alleges that the trial court’s denial of his motion for a continuance constitutes plain error. While a defendant does have the right to counsel of his choice, this right is not absolute. This right may not be used to thwart the progress of a trial. A denial of a last-minute continuance for the defendant to retain new counsel falls within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless it appears to have resulted in manifest injustice. Boyd had ample time to obtain other counsel. Trial was conducted on October 6, 2010. On May 20, 2010, the case was set for trial on October 5, 2010. Boyd’s retained attorney entered his appearance on September 22, 2010. The attorney subsequently received discovery on or about September 29, 2010. Thus, no manifest injustice occurred. Issue 2: Excessive sentence Boyd argues that his sentence violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A sentence that does not exceed the maximum period allowed by statute will not be disturbed on appeal. The 120-year sentence imposed on Boyd by the trial judge did not exceed the punishment allowed under section 41-29-139(b)(1), which was enhanced by section 41-29-142, and then enhanced again by section 41-29-147. In addition, there was no error in the amendment to Boyd’s indictment. The amendment neither affected Boyd’s defense to the underlying charge of selling marijuana within 1,500 feet of a school or within 1,000 feet of the real property of a school, nor did it prejudice his defense against the subsequent-drug-offender charge. Boyd knew prior to trial that the State sought to charge him as a subsequent drug offender. Confronted with notice that the State sought to amend his indictment based on his status as a subsequent drug offender, Boyd rejected the State’s plea deal and proceeded to trial. Therefore, no unfair surprise to Boyd occurred.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court