Floyd v. State
155 So. 3d 883
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Floyd was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and sentenced as a habitual offender to 60 years with no parole, plus a $2,000,000 fine.
- Anonymous tip led police to Floyd’s alleged cocaine activity at 3503 Hancock Ave.; surveillance and a traffic stop followed Floyd entering/exiting the apartment.
- Evidence included cocaine powder on Floyd, a bag of cocaine in the apartment, cash on Floyd, and Floyd’s sister Keisha claiming Floyd lived there; Boose claimed ownership of the drugs.
- A taped conversation between Floyd and Boose discussed Floyd’s prior felonies and Boose’s decision to testify, suggesting manipulation of ownership assertions.
- The State sought to admit Floyd’s prior convictions under Rule 404(b) to prove intent; trial court gave limiting instruction S-4, and later the habitual-offender status was challenged.
- On appeal, the court vacated Floyd’s sentence and remanded for resentencing as a nonhabitual offender, citing improper proof of habitual-offender status; the court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction D-5 on possession | Floyd argues D-5 misstates knowledge of presence/character | State contends S-8 covers knowledge and intent | D-5 denied; S-8 adequately covers possession law |
| Admission of prior convictions | Hosey standard violated; prejudice from prior acts | 404(b) proper to show intent with limiting instruction | Admissible evidence of prior convictions under 404(b) (restricted use) |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Evidence insufficient to prove knowledge/intent | Evidence shows proximity, control, and concealment; sufficient | Evidence legally sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed (subject to remand on habitual status) |
| Habitual-offender status | State failed to meet statutory two separate offenses requirement | Habitual status properly charged under 99-19-81 | Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing as nonhabitual offender (double jeopardy considerations) |
| Field test testimony | Officer lacked personal knowledge; field test improperly admitted | Officer Johnson’s testimony was permissible; door opened by defense | Testimony permitted; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. State, 884 So.2d 733 (Miss. 2004) (instruction preservation and standard of review for refused jury instructions)
- Ford v. State, 52 So.3d 1245 (Miss.Ct.App. 2011) (instructions read as a whole; fair law given)
- Wess v. State, 926 So.2d 930 (Miss.Ct.App. 2005) (considering instructions when determining reversible error)
- Hager v. State, 996 So.2d 94 (Miss.Ct.App. 2008) (refusal of instructions that misstate the law)
- Hudson v. State, 30 So.3d 1199 (Miss. 2010) (knowledge and intent required for possession)
- Hosey v. State, 77 So.3d 507 (Miss.Ct.App. 2012) (Rule 404(b) evidence admissible to show intent)