Richard Rosebur v. State of Mississippi
214 So. 3d 307
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Richard and Jamie Rosebur were tried and convicted for shooting into a dwelling after police found three men near the scene, firearms and magazines, positive gunshot residue, and 38 cartridge cases fired from one of the recovered guns.
- Each was sentenced to ten years for shooting into a dwelling (five years suspended, five years post-release supervision) and an additional five years under the firearm-enhancement statute, the five-year enhancement to run concurrently and not to be reduced or suspended.
- The indictment dated December 2012; multiple continuances (mostly requested by Richard) delayed trial until February 2016; Jamie’s unruled speedy-trial motion was raised pretrial but not pursued at hearing.
- On appeal the sole issue raised was whether the five-year firearm enhancement violates state or federal Double Jeopardy protections.
- Neither appellant challenged sufficiency of the evidence; both raised the double jeopardy claim for the first time on appeal (such claims are reviewable when raised post-conviction).
Issues
| Issue | Roseburs’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the five-year firearm enhancement under Miss. Code § 97-37-37 violates Double Jeopardy | Enhancement punishes same conduct as underlying offense (impossible to shoot into a dwelling without using a firearm) | Legislature expressly authorized cumulative punishment; enhancement is valid additional sentence | Rejected appellants’ claim; enhancement does not violate Double Jeopardy; convictions and sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1983) (legislative authorization permits cumulative punishment under separate statutes)
- Taylor v. State, 137 So. 3d 283 (Miss. 2014) (Mississippi Supreme Court approving Court of Appeals’ analysis that firearm enhancement does not violate double jeopardy)
- Wansley v. State, 114 So. 3d 793 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (Court of Appeals holding Legislature intended cumulative punishment via firearm enhancement)
- Gunn v. State, 174 So. 3d 848 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate decision applying same rule permitting enhancement)
- Lewis v. State, 112 So. 3d 1092 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (same conclusion regarding firearm enhancement)