Eugene Martin v. State of Mississippi, 214 So. 3d 217

On April 22, 2014 a Lowndes County grand jury indicted Eugene Martin for firing a weapon into a dwelling (Miss. Code §97-37-29). Trial occurred May 2015 and a jury convicted him.
The State moved to amend the indictment to seek habitual-offender enhancement under Miss. Code §99-19-81 based on a 1982 burglary conviction and a 1994 federal bank-fraud conviction. Martin’s counsel did not object to the amendment at the hearing.
At sentencing the trial court treated Martin as a habitual offender and imposed the statutory mandatory maximum ten-year sentence. Martin filed post-trial motions which were denied.
Martin challenged on appeal that the federal 1994 conviction did not result in an aggregate sentence of one year or more (it produced a 3-month term plus supervised release and a later 5-month revocation), so it did not qualify to trigger §99-19-81.
The Supreme Court of Mississippi held Martin’s conviction for shooting into a dwelling was supported by the evidence, but the habitual-offender enhancement was improperly applied because the State failed to prove two prior sentences of one year or more; the mandatory ten-year sentence was reversed and remanded for resentencing under §97-37-29.

Issue	Martin's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Validity of §99-19-81 habitual-offender enhancement	One prior federal conviction resulted in less than one year; enhancement therefore invalid	Prior convictions established; enhancement properly sought and imposed	Enhancement invalid—only one qualifying prior; sentence as habitual offender reversed and remanded for resentencing
Defective/amended indictment and notice	Amended indictment improperly served; defective	Amendment allowed under rules; Martin had notice and opportunity to defend; no prejudice shown	Rejected—no prejudice, amendment timely and permissibly made
Sufficiency of evidence for shooting into dwelling	Conviction insufficient	Victim and investigator identified Martin; physical evidence of shots	Affirmed—evidence sufficient to support conviction
Weight of evidence and other asserted errors (due process, etc.)	Verdict against overwhelming weight; multiple procedural and due-process complaints	Claims unsupported by record or authority; issues not preserved	Rejected—weight of evidence supports verdict; other claims lack record support or preservation

Cummings v. State, 465 So. 2d 993 (procedural bar for failure to object to habitual-offender enhancement)
Smith v. State, 986 So. 2d 290 (plain-error review for obvious errors affecting substantial rights)
Conner v. State, 138 So. 3d 143 (illegal sentence subject to plain-error review)
Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836 (standard for sufficiency review under Jackson v. Virginia)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for review of sufficiency of the evidence)
Vanwey v. State, 149 So. 3d 1023 (discussion of waiver of challenge to habitual enhancement)
Byrom v. State, 863 So. 2d 836 (appellate requirements for showing preserved error and record support)