Miles v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01134-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-01134-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-04-2003 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Uttering a forgery & Petit larceny - Number of peremptory challenges - Sufficiency of evidence - Constitutionality of sentence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-27-2002 Appealed from: Panola County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: UTTERING A FORGERY: SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE MDOC, WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE District Attorney: Ann H. Lamar Case Number: 2001-157-BP2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Hershel Miles, Jr. |
DAVID L. WALKER |
||
| 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: | Uttering a forgery & Petit larceny - Number of peremptory challenges - Sufficiency of evidence - Constitutionality of sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Hershel Miles, Jr. was convicted of uttering a forgery and petit larceny. He was sentenced, as a habitual offender, to a term of life without parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Peremptory challenges Miles argues that the court erred when, during jury selection, it permitted him only six peremptory challenges instead of twelve. A jury found Miles guilty of both forgery and petit larceny, neither of which are capital offenses. Because Miles’s offenses were noncapital, the statutory and rules provisions which provide extra peremptory challenges to the venire in capital cases were inapplicable and he was entitled only to the regular number of six peremptory challenges. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Miles argues that the court erred when it denied his peremptory instruction, because the only evidence presented against him by the State was circumstantial. In a case such as this, the court should consider the temporal proximity of the possession to the crime to be inferred; the number or percentage of the fruits of the crime possessed; the nature of the possession in terms of whether there is an attempt at concealment or any other evidence of guilty knowledge; and whether an explanation is given and whether that explanation is plausible or demonstrably false. The first factor, the temporal proximity of possession, is neutral to Miles and the State. The second factor weighs in favor of Miles. From the various items which were stolen, Miles had in his possession only one check and none of the other items were recovered. The third factor weighs in favor of the State. While Miles’s presentation of his driver’s license at the bank teller’s window was not an effort to conceal his identity, he fled the scene when the police arrived at the bank. The fourth factor lends strength to the inference of guilt. Although Miles explained that he got the check for payment of a motor which he sold to a man known as Al, he could not identify him, could not tell where he lived, and could not tell how to contact him. Moreover, his explanation of why he fled the scene as the police arrived at the bank was contradicted by the men transporting him to the bank. Therefore, the jury was fully warranted in concluding that Miles was guilty of uttering a forged instrument and petit larceny. Issue 3: Constitutionality of sentence Miles argues that his sentence of life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. The general rule is that a sentence cannot be disturbed on appeal so long as it does not exceed the maximum term allowed by statute. While his sentence is severe, Miles’ sentence is justified by the State's public-safety interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons, and amply supported by his own long, serious criminal record. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
