Wilson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2014-KA-01478-COA Linked Case(s): 2014-KA-01478-COA ; 2014-CT-01478-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-22-2016 Opinion Author: Wilson, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Receiving stolen property - Jury instructions - Alibi instruction - Burden of proof instruction - Section 97-17-70(3)(b) - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sentencing statute - Amendment of statute - Section 97-17-70(4) - Section 99-19-1 - Retroactive application of amendments Judge(s) Concurring: Griffis, P.J., Carlton, Fair and Greenlee, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: James, J., concurs in part without separate written opinion Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Irving, P.J., with separate written opinion Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Lee, C.J., Barnes, Ishee and James, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-29-2014 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: HON. ISADORE W. PATRICK JR. Disposition: Covicted of receiving stolen property and sentenced as a habitual offender to 10 years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and to pay a $10,000 fine District Attorney: Richard Earl Smith Jr. Case Number: 13,0045-CRP(2) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Timothy Allen Wilson a/k/a Timothy Wilson |
OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER: GEORGE T. HOLMES |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: ALICIA MARIE AINSWORTH | ||
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: | Receiving stolen property - Jury instructions - Alibi instruction - Burden of proof instruction - Section 97-17-70(3)(b) - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Sentencing statute - Amendment of statute - Section 97-17-70(4) - Section 99-19-1 - Retroactive application of amendments |
| Summary of the Facts: | Timothy Wilson was convicted of receiving stolen property and sentenced, as a habitual offender, to ten years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury instructions Wilson argues that Instruction S-3 was improper because it required him to prove the truth of his alibi defense. This issue is procedurally barred, because Wilson failed to proffer an alibi instruction, and the circuit judge had no duty to sua sponte instruct the jury on Wilson’s alibi defense. In addition, the instructions, read as a whole, adequately informed the jury that the State bore the burden of proof. Neither Instruction S-3 nor the absence of a different alibi instruction prevented the jury from considering witnesses’ testimonies and determining whether Wilson had an alibi. Wilson also argues that Instruction S-4, which tracks the language found in section 97-17-70(3)(b), was prejudicially defective because it lessened the State’s burden of proof. Another instruction, S-7, fully instructed the jury on the elements that the State had to prove in this case. In addition, several instructions thoroughly instructed the jury on the State’s burden of proof. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not commit plain or obvious error by accurately quoting the relevant statute. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Wilson argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to object to Instructions S-3 and S-4 and because he failed to submit an alibi instruction. Generally, ineffective assistance claims are more appropriately brought during post-conviction proceedings. However, the Court may address an ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal if the presented issues are based on facts fully apparent from the record. Here, Wilson’s ineffective assistance claim is based on facts that are fully apparent on the record. Wilson’s trial counsel may well have abandoned the alibi defense after hearing the testimony of Wilson’s alibi witnesses. But even without an alibi instruction, the jury was still able to consider their testimonies and to find that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Wilson was guilty of receiving stolen property. Accordingly, Wilson fails to show that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to request an alibi instruction or that he suffered any prejudice as a result. Also, the jury was instructed thoroughly on the State’s burden to prove each and every element of the offense charged. Therefore, Wilson cannot show that there is a reasonable probability that this one instruction altered the result of the proceeding. Issue 3: Sentencing The indictment charged Wilson with receiving stolen property that had “a value in excess of $500.00.” Prior to Wilson’s trial, the Legislature amended subsection 97-17-70(4) to change the $500 threshold to a range of more than $1,000 but less than $5,000 and to reduce the maximum punishment. However, the jurors at Wilson’s trial were instructed that in order to convict him, they had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the utility trailer he was charged with receiving “was valued at more than $500.” Wilson was sentenced under the version of the statute in effect at the time he committed his offense, which provided that “[a]ny person . . . convicted of receiving stolen property which exceeds Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) in value shall be committed to the custody of [MDOC] for a term not exceeding ten (10) years . . . .” Although the Legislature amended the statute under which Wilson was convicted prior to his trial, the circuit court’s decision to conduct his trial and sentencing under the prior version of the statute was in accordance with applicable law. Pursuant to section 99-19-1, retroactive application of these amendments was not intended. According to the statute, in general, the version of the statute in effect at the time an offense is committed will continue to control the defendant’s prosecution and his punishment. Thus, the circuit judge correctly applied the version of the statute in effect when Wilson committed his offense. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
