Gowdy v. State
2010 Miss. LEXIS 656
| Miss. | 2010Background
- Gowdy was convicted of felony driving under the influence after a jury trial.
- Two months after trial and conviction, but before sentencing, the State amended the indictment to add habitual-offender status.
- The trial judge adjudicated Gowdy an habitual offender and sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole.
- The court held the indictment amendment after conviction was improper and vacated the enhanced portion of the sentence, remanding for resentencing.
- Officer observations at the stop included running a stop sign, Gowdy’s flight, and odor of alcohol; Gowdy denied drinking.
- Gowdy testified he admitted the stop sign but denied drinking, and contended the station did not administer a breath or field sobriety test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-conviction indictment amendment to add habitual offender status was proper. | Gowdy argues amendment after conviction was improper. | State argues amendment is permissible under Rule 7.09. | The amendment after conviction was improper; enhanced sentence vacated and remanded. |
| Whether ineffective-assistance claims are reviewable on direct appeal. | Gowdy asserts trial counsel failures. | State arguesLimited record for direct review; post-conviction relief appropriate. | Claims dismissed without prejudice to post-conviction relief. |
| Whether the voir dire questions about jurors’ prior verdicts created plain error. | Gowdy contends plain error affected fairness. | State defends routine voir dire practice. | No plain error; voir dire questions deemed permissible. |
| Whether the timing of the habitual-offender amendment is permissible under URCCC 7.09. | Gowdy argues timing matters; improper. | State contends amendment is permitted as form, not substance. | Majority holds timing permissible under current rule; amendment allowed before sentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Akins v. State, 493 So.2d 1321 (Miss. 1986) (held that amendment to charge under big vs little habitual-offender enhancement was impermissible when after conviction under prior regime)
- Torrey v. State, 891 So.2d 188 (Miss. 2004) (permissible to amend indictment to habitual-offender after verdict in line with URCCC 7.09 (overruled earlier emphasis))
- Ormond v. State, 599 So.2d 951 (Miss. 1992) (reversed enhancement when indictment failed to list prior dates; emphasizes pre-sentencing specifics)
- Nathan v. State, 552 So.2d 99 (Miss. 1989) (discusses continuance and surprise related to indictment amendments)