Grayer v. State
120 So. 3d 964
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Shortly after midnight on Jan. 29, 2011, Officer Payne observed a man (later identified as Melvin Grayer) inside the fenced perimeter of a business; the man fled, jumped a gate, and ran into nearby woods.
- A K9 team located and arrested Grayer hiding in the woods.
- At the scene, officer observed sheet metal pried back at a point of entry and speakers on the ground in the breezeway; the business owner testified the speakers were normally stored inside.
- Grayer was indicted for burglary (Miss. Code §97-17-33) and as a habitual offender (Miss. Code §99-19-81), with the indictment listing seven prior felony convictions.
- At sentencing the State recited Grayer’s prior convictions and told the court it had certified sentencing orders (which had been provided to defense counsel), but the certified documents were not introduced into the record; the trial court found Grayer a habitual offender and imposed a 7-year sentence with no parole or probation.
- Grayer appealed, arguing (1) ineffective assistance for failure to request a circumstantial-evidence instruction and (2) his habitual-offender enhancement was unsupported by competent evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grayer) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a circumstantial-evidence instruction | Counsel was deficient for failing to request the instruction because the State’s proof was circumstantial | Officer Payne’s eyewitness testimony placed Grayer inside the business perimeter and at the scene, so the evidence was direct | Not ineffective: no deficiency — eyewitness testimony constituted direct evidence so no circumstantial-instruction was required |
| Whether the State proved habitual-offender status with competent evidence | Habitual-offender enhancement is invalid because certified judgments of prior convictions were not placed into the record | The State had certified sentencing orders and recited prior convictions to the court and provided copies to defense counsel | Error: the State failed to introduce competent proof (certified judgments) into the record; sentencing as habitual offender vacated |
| Whether the error is reviewable despite no trial objection (procedural bar/plain error) | Grayer argued plain error review because an illegal sentence implicates a fundamental right | State relied on procedural default absent objection at sentencing | Court reviewed for plain error and found plain, prejudicial error in imposing the enhancement without competent proof |
| Whether the State may retry or re-prove habitual status on remand | Not expressly argued as separate issue by parties on appeal | State suggested evidence existed for judge’s review | Held: Prosecution cannot retry habitual-offender proof on remand without violating double jeopardy; sentencing enhancement vacated and remand for resentencing as nonhabitual offender |
Key Cases Cited
- Smiley v. State, 815 So.2d 1140 (Miss. 2002) (standard for ineffective assistance review)
- Schmitt v. State, 560 So.2d 148 (Miss. 1990) (definition of reasonable probability standard in ineffective-assistance claims)
- McIlwain v. State, 700 So.2d 586 (Miss. 1997) (competent proof requirement for prior convictions/judgment as best evidence)
- Ellis v. State, 520 So.2d 495 (Miss. 1988) (sentencing hearing on habitual status constitutes jeopardy; limits retrial of sentencing proof)
- Keyes v. State, 549 So.2d 949 (Miss. 1989) (requirements to sentence as habitual offender)