Samuel Conwill v. State of Mississippi
229 So. 3d 208
Miss. Ct. App. Hist.2017Background
- Samuel Conwill pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine; the State dismissed a related precursor possession charge as part of the plea agreement.
- At the guilty-plea/sentencing hearing the State moved to amend the indictment to reflect Conwill’s habitual-offender status and introduced certified “pen packs” as proof.
- Conwill’s trial counsel did not object to the amendment or to admission of the pen packs; the trial court granted the amendment and sentenced him as a habitual offender.
- Conwill later filed various postconviction motions (seeking correction of MDOC records and to vacate an alleged illegal sentence); the circuit court dismissed his PCR petition.
- Conwill appealed pro se, arguing the pen packs lacked testimonial foundation and their admission violated due process and his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of pen packs without foundational testimony violated due process / Confrontation Clause | Conwill: pen packs were admitted without testimonial foundation or witness to authenticate, so admission violated his rights | State: certified pen packs are competent, administrative records and suffice to prove prior convictions; no testimonial witness required | Court: Affirmed — issue procedurally barred (no objection at trial) and, on the merits, pen packs need not be authenticated by testimonial foundation |
Key Cases Cited
- Frazier v. State, 907 So. 2d 985 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (certified pen packs suffice as competent evidence of prior convictions for habitual-offender proof)
- Kettle v. State, 641 So. 2d 746 (Miss. 1994) (scientific lab results require testimony from the testing technician for Confrontation Clause purposes)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (surrogate testimony for a lab analyst’s certification violates the Sixth Amendment)
- Reed v. State, 180 So. 3d 755 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (failure to object to habitual-offender issues at sentencing procedurally bars appellate review)