Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00418-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-00418-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-11-2007 Opinion Author: LAMAR, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manufacturing marijuana & Possession of firearm by felon - Sufficiency of evidence - Striking of jurors - Videotapes - Previous conviction - Miranda rights - Closing argument - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-02-2006 Appealed from: Itawamba County Circuit Court Judge: Sharion R. Aycock Disposition: John A. Williams was convicted on two counts: (1) manufacturing marijuana in a quantity greater than thirty grams, and (2) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR05-121(A)I |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | John A. Williams |
William C. Stennett |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | 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: | Manufacturing marijuana & Possession of firearm by felon - Sufficiency of evidence - Striking of jurors - Videotapes - Previous conviction - Miranda rights - Closing argument - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Williams was convicted of manufacturing marijuana in a quantity greater than thirty grams and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. For manufacturing marijuana, Williams was sentenced to fifteen years and ordered to pay a $1,500 fine. For being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, Williams was sentenced to three years to run concurrently with the fifteen-year sentence. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Williams argues that the evidence against him was insufficient to support his conviction. During the testimony of the agent, it was established that someone had been videotaped by the surveillance camera tending the plants located in the woods. On the first video, the suspect could be seen bending over, tending to the plants, and then walking away from the plants. The video showed two dogs. Two dogs fitting the description of the dogs on the video were found at Williams’ residence. The second video showed a suspect tending the plants. Two agents identified this suspect as John Williams. Williams admitted that the marijuana plants found in the woods were his. When the search warrant was executed at Williams’ residence, the agents recovered two marijuana plants which were being grown on Williams’ property, marijuana in a Tupperware bowl and a film canister, and marijuana-growing literature and paraphernalia. Williams admitted that these items belonged to him. This was sufficient evidence to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams was guilty of each element of the crime of manufacturing marijuana. Williams argues that the gun found at his residence was not his but his wife’s and that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the gun belonged to him. It is clear from the record that Williams’ residence was under the control and possession of both Williams and his wife. The handgun was found in the drawer of a nightstand located on the left side of the bed in Williams’ bedroom. The agent testified that because of the items located in the dresser on the right side of the room and the nightstand on the left side of the room, it appeared that the left side of the room was Williams’ side. The agent also testified that Williams’ wife claimed that the gun was hers, but when he asked her to load bullets into the gun’s magazine, she could not. This is sufficient additional incriminating evidence for a reasonable juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams was in constructive possession of the handgun found in his bedroom. Issue 2: Striking of jurors Williams argues that he was unable to receive a fair trial because potential jurors who stated during voir dire that they were familiar with the attorneys, witnesses, or Williams himself were allowed to serve as jurors. Because there was no challenge by the defense to any of these jurors at trial, Williams has waived his right to appeal this issue. Issue 3: Videotapes Williams argues that the court erred in allowing the videotapes from the surveillance camera in the woods to be shown to the jury. After the admission of the first video into evidence, defense counsel objected on the basis that the prosecution had already told the jury that they would see Williams on the tape. However, the objection was erroneous, because the suspect on the video was referred to only as “a person.” With regard to the second video, defense counsel again objected to the prosecutor’s telling the jury that they would see Williams in the picture. While the court did not directly sustain defense counsel’s objection nor admonish the prosecutor’s comment, the court’s instruction informed the jury to make their own factual determinations as to whether the suspect on the video was the defendant. A jury is presumed to follow the direction of a trial court to disregard an improper comment. Issue 4: Previous conviction Williams argues that the court erred in allowing evidence pertaining to his previous conviction for aggravated assault. Because there was no objection at trial to the indictment and sentencing order being entered into evidence, this issue is barred on appeal. Issue 5: Miranda rights Williams argues that he was questioned prior to being informed of his Miranda rights. This argument is presented for the first time on appeal. As a general rule, constitutional questions not asserted at the trial level are deemed waived. Issue 6: Closing argument Williams argues that the court should have granted a mistrial sua sponte by the prosecutor’s remark during closing argument referencing a prior shooting by Williams, because the jury was tainted by the prosecutor’s comment. There is no reason to believe that Williams was prejudiced or that the jury was tainted by the prosecutor’s remark. Details of the shooting mentioned in the allegedly improper remark were already before the jury in the aggravated assault indictment, which had been admitted into evidence without objection. In addition, the court gave a curative instruction to the jury. Issue 7: Ineffective assistance of counsel Williams argues that his representation at trial was deficient. He argues that counsel erred in not moving to have the charges against him severed so that the manufacturing-marijuana charge and the felon-in-possession-of-a firearm charge could be tried in different proceedings. Because this question was not raised at the trial level and arises from an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the burden is on Williams to make a showing that his multi-count indictment violated the statute. Williams provides no authority, no argument, and no analysis on this issue. Even if defense counsel had successfully moved to have the charges severed, given the strength of the State’s case against Williams, he could not reasonably have expected a different result on the manufacture-of-marijuana charge. Williams also argues that it was ineffective assistance for his counsel to call no witnesses. Williams’ counsel performed a thorough cross examination of the witnesses called by the State. After consulting with counsel, Williams himself made the decision that he did not wish to testify. Williams has not overcome the presumption that his counsel’s performance was reasonable under the circumstances. Williams argues that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request the judge recuse herself, because Williams’ wife had been involved in a lawsuit against the judge’s brother. The issue was never raised at the trial level, and the record is completely devoid of any evidence which would support this claim on appeal. In addition, a review of the record reveals no prejudice or bias on the judge’s part. Williams has failed to show that his trial counsel’s assistance was sufficiently deficient to constitute prejudice to his defense. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
