Triplett v. State
145 So. 3d 1256
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Triplett was convicted of exploitation of a child in the Lowndes County Circuit Court and sentenced as a habitual offender to 40 years’ MDOC custody with a $50,000 fine.
- Investigators seized multiple computers during a 2009 search of Triplett’s home to aid a missing-child investigation; the HP Pavilion 9000 computer was central.
- A mirror image of the HP Pavilion 9000 was created; the original computer was retained and later returned after the lab found child-pornography images.
- Triplett was interviewed by sheriffs’ investigators, arrested, and tried in a bench trial beginning September 4, 2012, resulting in a conviction for exploitation of a child.
- Prior to trial, the State moved to amend the indictment to add habitual-offender status based on two prior felonies: (1) a Jackson County conviction for Attempted Aggravated Assault (2008-10,005) and (2) a federal conviction for Possession of Child Pornography (1:09CR00154-001).
- The circuit court granted the amendment, and Triplett was sentenced as a habitual offender to 40 years; Triplett appeals challenging the habitual-offender enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved habitual-offender status under §99-19-81. | Triplett argues the federal conviction arose from the same incident and should not count. | State contends multiple offenses arose from separate incidents permitting enhancement under the statute. | Habitual-offender enhancement reversed; remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittman v. State, 570 So.2d 1205 (Miss. 1990) (whether separate incidents exist for habitual-offender purposes)
- Nicolaou v. State, 534 So.2d 168 (Miss. 1988) (same-day offenses may count as separate incidents if distinct in time/place)
- Riddle v. State, 413 So.2d 737 (Miss. 1982) (same incident may fail to qualify as separate incidents for habitual status)
- Bergeron v. State, 60 So.3d 212 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (prior offenses may be considered separately if arising from separate incidents)
- Otis v. State, 853 So.2d 856 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (focus on whether offenses arose from a common nucleus of operative facts)