198 So. 3d 408
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- On April 2, 2012 Timothy Wilson and his brother were observed taking a utility trailer; Wilson was later arrested, tried jointly, and convicted of receiving stolen property.
- Wilson presented an alibi defense through two witnesses but his trial counsel did not submit a proposed alibi jury instruction or object to the State’s alibi-related instructions.
- The trial court gave Instruction S-3 (stating the State is not required to disprove an alibi) and Instruction S-4 (quoting statutory "prima facie evidence" language); counsel made no contemporaneous objections.
- The jury was instructed on the elements and returned a verdict finding the trailer was worth more than $500; Wilson was convicted.
- Wilson was sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years under the version of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 in effect at the time of the offense; the statute had been amended (House Bill 585, eff. July 1, 2014) before sentencing to change value thresholds and penalties.
- Wilson appealed, raising challenges to jury instructions, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the sentence under the amended statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wilson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction S-3 (alibi) | S-3 improperly required Wilson to prove his alibi and prevented consideration of his defense | No contemporaneous objection; S-3 did not shift burden; overall charge made State's burden clear | Procedurally barred (no plain error); instructions read together correctly stated law and did not shift burden; no reversible error |
| Jury instruction S-4 ("prima facie"/value/knowledge) | S-4 lessened State's burden, confused jury with legal jargon, and impermissibly commented on evidence | No objection at trial; S-4 accurately tracked statute; other instructions preserved State's burden beyond reasonable doubt | Procedurally barred; even if flawed, other instructions cured any potential error; no plain error |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failures to object / submit instruction) | Counsel was deficient for not objecting to S-3 and S-4 and for not submitting an alibi instruction | Omissions may be trial strategy; record does not show prejudice | Addressed on direct appeal (record sufficient); defendant fails Strickland showing — no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Sentencing under amended statute | Wilson should receive the milder punishment in effect at sentencing (amended thresholds reduce felony exposure) | Section 99-19-1 preserves the law in effect when the offense was committed; amendments to elements/punishments are interrelated so cannot be retroactively applied | Affirmed sentencing under the statute as of the offense date; cannot retroactively apply amendments that change elements without violating precedent and constitutional concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. State, 119 So.3d 1007 (Miss. 2013) (standard of review for jury instructions)
- Holmes v. State, 481 So.2d 319 (Miss. 1985) (alibi instruction discussion; State not required to disprove alibi)
- McKlemurry v. State, 947 So.2d 987 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (instructions read as a whole; no reversible error if law correctly stated)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Wilson v. State, 967 So.2d 32 (Miss. 2007) (amendments changing elements cannot be applied retroactively to reduce punishment)
- Daniels v. State, 742 So.2d 1140 (Miss. 1999) (when statute reduces penalty and amendment is effective before sentencing, plaintiff must be sentenced under amended statute)