232 So.3d 789
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- Jameil Clark was indicted for aggravated assault; the indictment erroneously referenced Mississippi Code § 41‑29‑152 but also referenced the firearm enhancement under § 97‑37‑37.
- The State moved to amend the indictment to correct the statutory reference to § 97‑37‑37; the court allowed the amendment as a scrivener’s correction.
- Clark entered an open guilty plea after declining the court’s offer to postpone his plea following the amendment.
- The circuit court sentenced Clark to 20 years (15 years for aggravated assault after suspensions, plus a consecutive 5‑year firearm enhancement) and five years of post‑release supervision.
- Clark filed a motion for postconviction relief (PCR) arguing inadequate notice and that the firearm enhancement required jury findings; the PCR was denied and Clark appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended indictment gave Clark adequate notice of the firearm enhancement | Clark argued the original indictment (which cited the wrong statute number) failed to give fair notice of the enhancement and thus violated due process | State argued the wrong statute citation was a scrivener’s error; the indictment read as a whole put Clark on notice and the amendment was only to form | Court held notice was adequate: the indictment as a whole indicated the firearm enhancement, Clark was offered time to postpone his plea and declined, and plea colloquy disclosed penalties; PCR denial affirmed |
| Whether the firearm enhancement required a jury finding of the use/display of a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt | Clark argued the element (use/display) must be charged and found by a jury under Apprendi principles | State noted Clark entered an open plea and waived the right to have elements proven at trial | Court acknowledged the enhancement element normally must be found by a jury, but Clark’s open plea waived that requirement; no error in applying the enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 965 So. 2d 686 (Miss. 2007) (standard of review for PCR and mixed questions of law)
- Sallie v. State, 155 So. 3d 760 (Miss. 2015) (notice required in indictment includes notice of enhancements and jury finding requirement for firearm enhancements)
- Townsend v. State, 188 So. 3d 616 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (indictment legally sufficient if it provides fair notice when read as a whole)
- Spears v. State, 942 So. 2d 772 (Miss. 2006) (courts may amend indictments to correct form but not substance)
- Brown v. State, 12 So. 3d 586 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (indictments may be amended as to form but not substance)
- Greenlee v. State, 725 So. 2d 816 (Miss. 1998) (amendment permissible if it does not materially alter essence of the offense or prejudice the defense)
- Johnson v. State, 194 So. 3d 191 (Miss. 2016) (notice of enhancement may be adequate even when given a few days before trial)
- Williams v. State, 131 So. 3d 1174 (Miss. 2014) (defendant can learn of State’s intent to amend indictment on same day amendment is filed without due process violation)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt)