McCain v. State
81 So. 3d 1055
| Miss. | 2012Background
- McCain was convicted of robbery under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-73 and sentenced to life as a habitual offender.
- Nearly seven months before trial, the State filed a Motion to Amend Indictment to Include Habitual Criminal Enhancement under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-83, attaching two prior bank-robbery judgments.
- The motion was not ruled on until after conviction; McCain objected at sentencing, arguing lack of notice and unfair surprise.
- The circuit court granted the motion to amend, treating McCain as a habitual offender with life imprisonment without parole.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; McCain sought certiorari, contending Gowdy v. State should apply and vacate the sentence.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court held Gowdy applies retroactively when the case is not final and analyzed Rule 7.09’s fair-notice/fair-opportunity requirements case-by-case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of Gowdy | McCain argues Gowdy governs post-conviction amendments. | State contends Gowdy should not apply retroactively to McCain. | Gowdy applies retroactively. |
| Notice and opportunity to present a defense | McCain lacked fair notice and defense time. | State argues URCCC 7.09 fairness standards were met. | Notice and opportunity satisfied; no unfair surprise. |
| Timeliness and propriety of amendment under URCCC 7.09 | Post-conviction amendment to include habitual status is improper. | Rule 7.09 permits such amendment with fair notice and defense opportunity. | Amendment upheld; consistent with case-by-case application of Rule 7.09. |
| Distinction from Gowdy | Gowdy prohibits post-conviction habitual-offender amendments. | McCain’s facts mirror Gowdy’s unfair surprise concerns. | McCain’s circumstances are sufficiently distinguishable; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gowdy v. State, 56 So.3d 540 (Miss.2011) (held post-conviction habitual-offender amendments can be unfair surprises; vacated/resentenced in Gowdy)
- Akins v. State, 493 So.2d 1321 (Miss.1986) (early rule limiting post-conviction amendments to habitual status)
- Adams v. State, 772 So.2d 1010 (Miss.2000) (indictment amended to habitual status prior to trial; relevance to timing)
- Decker v. State, 66 So.3d 654 (Miss.2011) (indictment notice and notice-based cases; guidance on Article 26/27 distinction)