Boyd v. State, 113 So. 3d 1252

Boyd was convicted of sale of marijuana within 1,500 feet of a school or within 1,000 feet of school property.
Sentenced as a subsequent drug offender to 120 years with 60 to serve and 5 years post-release supervision.
Court of Appeals affirmed both conviction and sentence.
Trial court denied Boyd’s continuance; Boyd proceeded pro se.
State announced intent to amend indictment to reflect subsequent-offender status; notice was not timely or sufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether notice for indictment amendment was sufficient	Boyd lacked timely notice of subsequent-offender amendment	State provided some notice during pretrial	Not sufficient; remand for resentencing on proper notice
Whether denial of continuance violated fair trial rights	Continued denial prejudiced defense	No abuse of discretion	Trial court did not abuse discretion on continuance
Proper scope of amendments to indictments for enhanced penalties	Amendment post-conviction is unfair surprise	Amendments permissible with notice	Post-conviction amendment constituted unfair surprise; vacate sentence and remand

Gowdy v. State, 56 So.3d 540 (Miss.2010) (notice and timing for habitual-offender amendments must afford fair opportunity to defend)
Smith v. State, 477 So.2d 191 (Miss.1985) (unfair surprise when sentence length not clearly indicated in indictment)
Ellis v. State, 469 So.2d 1256 (Miss.1985) (appropriate to amend to habitual offender status when defense aware of State’s intent)
Akins v. State, 493 So.2d 1321 (Miss.1986) (principles guiding amendments to indictments for enhanced penalties)