Otis v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-KA-00410-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-26-2003
Opinion Author: Irving, J.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Armed robbery - Life-imprisonment habitual punishment - Section 99-19-83 - Closing argument - Mistrial - Sufficiency of evidence - Voir dire
Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: McMillin, C.J.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: King and Southwick, P.JJ., and Thomas, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-01-2002
Appealed from: Lincoln County Circuit Court
Judge: Mike Smith
Disposition: ARMED ROBBERY - SENTENCED INTO THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC FOR THE REST OF HIS NATURAL LIFE. FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT PAY COURT COST $10,000 FINE AND $2500 ATTORNEY FEES.
District Attorney: J. Daniel Smith
Case Number: 01-277MS

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: James E. Otis




LESA HARRISON BAKER



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS  

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: Armed robbery - Life-imprisonment habitual punishment - Section 99-19-83 - Closing argument - Mistrial - Sufficiency of evidence - Voir dire

Summary of the Facts: James Otis was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender to life. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Habitual offender status Otis argues that he was improperly sentenced under the life-imprisonment habitual offender statute, section 99-19-83, because his prior convictions do not meet the requirements for enhanced punishment under the statute. Section 99-19-83 provides that a person convicted of a felony who shall have been convicted twice previously of any felony or federal crime upon charges separately brought and arising out of separate incidents at different times and who shall have been sentenced to and served separate terms of one year or more in any state and/or federal penal institution and where any one of such felonies shall have been a crime of violence shall be sentenced to life imprisonment. Otis admits that, prior to being convicted of the instant crimes, he had been convicted of seven felonies: kidnapping, robbery, larceny, and four counts of felonious bad checks. However, he asserts that the charges for kidnapping and robbery were not “separately brought” and that the charges did not “arise out of separate incidents at different times” as required by the life-imprisonment habitual offender statute. The prior convictions for kidnapping and robbery emanated from a single two-count indictment. Based on the language in the indictment, the kidnapping and robbery charges arose out of a single incident. Therefore, Otis's prior kidnapping and robbery convictions must be counted as one felony for determining the number of prior felonies that he has committed. However, there is no logical reason to count the two separate sentences, which he received for the two felonies, as one sentence. The requirement that the defendant must have been sentenced to and served one year or more in a penal institution for at least two prior felonies has been satisfied when the defendant has been sentenced to and served one year or more for any two prior felonies whether they arise out of the same incident or not, provided that he has also committed at least two felonies that were separately brought and arose out of separate incidents. Otis has been convicted of more than two prior felonies, and only one of his crimes, which arose out of the same incident, must be counted in determining the requisite number of prior felonies. Moreover, even when both of his felonies, which arose out of a single incident, are counted as a single felony, the requirement of two prior felonies is still satisfied. Therefore, Otis qualifies for life-imprisonment habitual sentencing. Issue 2: Closing argument Otis argues that during closing argument, the prosecutor improperly commented on his failure to testify. This argument is procedurally barred since Otis failed to object. In addition, the comment, when viewed in context, does not appear to be a deliberate attempt by the State to comment on Otis's right to remain silent. Issue 3: Mistrial Otis argues that the court erred by failing to grant a mistrial when one of the State’s witnesses made an impermissible comment regarding Otis's prior criminal history. Where a court sustains a defendant's objection and instructs the jury to disregard the question, the remedial acts of the court are deemed sufficient to remove any taint of prejudice from the jurors' minds. Here, the judge adequately cured or remedied the situation by admonishing the jury to disregard the comment about similar charges. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Otis argues that the State presented no physical evidence that connected him to the scene of the crime and that the testimonial evidence of the victim’s identification was extremely insufficient. Here, there was sufficient evidence presented by the State for reasonable and fair-minded jurors to find Otis guilty of armed robbery. The victim immediately identified Otis during a photo lineup and gave a detailed physical description of the perpetrator, testified to what the perpetrator was wearing, and affirmed that Otis was the culprit of the crime by identifying him. Issue 5: Voir dire Otis argues that the court erred in allowing the State to continue questioning during voir dire after the State had the jury commit to the quantity of evidence on which it would or would not convict. Prosecuting attorneys must avoid questions seeking a promise or commitment from the jury to convict if the State proved certain facts. However, a party waives any and all claims regarding the composition of his jury if he fails to raise an objection before the jury is sworn. At no time during the voir dire did Otis object to the prosecutor's line of questioning, nor did he ever request a curative instruction.


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