Brown v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00420-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-20-2008 Opinion Author: Diaz, P.J. Holding: CONVICTION OF SALE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AFFIRMED; SENTENCE OF THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT OF THIRTY YEARS VACATED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of controlled substance - Sufficiency of evidence - Sentence enhancement - Right to trial by jury - Section 41-29-142 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, P.J., Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Carlson, J., Specially Concurs With Separate Written Opinion Joined by Waller, P.J., Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.; Smith, C.J., Joins In Part. Non Participating Judge(s): Lamar, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Easley, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-07-2003 Appealed from: MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: R. I. Prichard, III Disposition: Conviction of sale of a controlled substance and sentence of thirty (30) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Sentence enhancement of thirty (30) years District Attorney: Haldon J. Kittrell Case Number: K02-0134-P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Jureka Brown |
Leslie S. Lee; Justin T. Cook |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE McCRORY | ||
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 controlled substance - Sufficiency of evidence - Sentence enhancement - Right to trial by jury - Section 41-29-142 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jureka Brown was convicted of sale of a controlled substance. The trial judge determined that the sale of a controlled substance had taken place within 1,500 feet of a church and enhanced Brown’s sentence from thirty years to sixty years. Brown appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Brown argues that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support a guilty verdict. The State presented evidence (in the form of the informant’s testimony) that Brown not only acknowledged but acquiesced to the sale of crack cocaine. The informant’s testimony was contradicted by the only witness submitted by the defense. Because a determination of the credibility of witnesses rests within the unique province of the jury, the jury did not act unreasonably by deciding that the defense witness’s testimony was less credible than the informant’s. A rational jury could have found Brown guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented, considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Issue 2: Sentence enhancement Brown argues that the trial court’s failure to allow a jury to consider his sentence enhancement violated his right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment. Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The existence of a church within 1,500 feet of Brown’s crime, therefore, is a fact that he was entitled to have determined by a jury. The State concedes as much in its reply brief. To the extent that the case of Williams v. State, 794 So. 2d 181 (Miss. 2001) claims no jury hearing is necessary on the issue of sentencing enhancement pursuant to section 41-29-142, it is overruled. However, Brown faces a procedural bar in raising this point of error, as he did not raise it at the trial court. The trial court’s error amounted to a failure to afford a criminal defendant the Sixth Amendment right to a jury. Even where the guilt of a defendant is beyond dispute, denial of a jury trial undoubtedly implicates the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings, thereby constituting clear error. The evidence contained within the record showing that Brown acted within 1,500 feet of a church was far from overwhelming and reasonable doubt exists on the point. Thus, the thirty-year sentence enhancement is vacated, and the matter is remanded. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
