166 So. 3d 32
Miss.2015Background
- Totten was convicted in 2013 of burglary of a dwelling and grand larceny, sentenced as a habitual offender to concurrent 25-year and 10-year terms, respectively.
- The State’s theory required proving that the current value of stolen property was $500 or more for grand larceny under Miss. Code § 97-17-41(1).
- Stolen items included a dryer, laptop, two chainsaws, an Amish heater, and tools; only the laptop and heater were recovered.
- The heater was purchased by Annie Davis directly from Totten for $10; the laptop was recovered after Totten tried to sell it and after pawn-shop interest.
- Evidence showed purchase prices totaling at least $1,860 for the stolen items, which the jury was instructed could support a finding of $500+ value at the time of theft.
- Totten challenged both the sufficiency of the value evidence and certain trial evidentiary rulings in a direct appeal, with some arguments raised pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of value evidence for grand larceny | Totten argues value of property at theft not proven. | State contends purchase prices support inferred market value. | Sufficient circumstantial evidence supported value at $500+. |
| Admission of laptop and heater without a warrant | Totten contends Fourth Amendment violation. | State asserts voluntary surrender and no reasonable expectation of privacy. | Evidence admissible; no Fourth Amendment violation. |
| Late disclosure of a state witness (Bo Mims) and continuance | Totten objects to late witness disclosure and denied continuance. | State's lateness was cured by motion practice; no continuance requested by Totten. | Waived objection for failure to request continuance. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal | Counsel failed to interview State witnesses; claim of ineffectiveness. | Record insufficient to show deficient performance on direct appeal. | Ineffective assistance claims are best addressed in PCR, not on direct appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunn v. State, 56 So. 3d 568 (Miss. 2011) (circumstantial evidence can establish value for grand larceny)
- Williams v. State, 994 So. 2d 821 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (purchase price may infer market value)
- Smith v. State, 881 So. 2d 908 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (purchase price as circumstantial value evidence)
- Ezell v. State, 956 So. 2d 315 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (additional authority on value evidence)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (no privacy expectation in certain non-seizure locations)