Wells v. State
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 124
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Wells was convicted in Harrison County Circuit Court of possession of cocaine with intent to transfer and sentenced as a habitual offender to 60 years MDOC, with no probation or parole eligibility.
- Prosecution conducted an undercover drug operation on May 24, 2007; $40 worth of cocaine was exchanged for crack pipes and marked money.
- Wells returned with cocaine, placed it in a crack pipe, and offered it to the officer for smoking; cocaine weighed under a tenth of a gram.
- Evidence included a glass pipe, a $20 bill, and the drugs found near Wells; a crime lab confirmed cocaine.
- State filed motions to amend indictment to add habitual-offender and prior-drug-offender enhancements; circuit court granted both amendments.
- Wells appealed raising multiple issues, including sufficiency, indictment amendments, speedy trial, cruel punishment, suppression, ineffective assistance, and cumulative error; Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Wells argues no intent to transfer; weight of evidence supports only possession. | State contends sufficient evidence shows intent to transfer/deliver. | Sufficient evidence supports intent to transfer; no weight error. |
| Indictment amendments: habitual offender | Amendment failed to specify district; procedural bar; insufficient under Rule 11.03(1). | Amendment complied; rule does not require district detail; proper enhancement. | Indictment complied with Rule 11.03(1); amendment valid. |
| Indictment amendments: prior-drug-offender | Prior drug-offender enhancement improper due to district specificity and timing. | Amendment proper; on-record findings shown; timing compliant with rules. | Amendment proper; on-the-record findings and timing proper; not meritless. |
| Speedy-trial violation | Delay prejudicial; denial of speedy-trial right. | Delays largely caused by Wells; continuances and waivers explained; no prejudice. | No constitutional speedy-trial violation; delay justified. |
| Cruel and unusual punishment | Sixty-year sentence disproportionate under Solem framework. | Sentence within statutory limits; proportionality not required given habitual/prior enhancements. | Sentence affirmed; proportionality analysis not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (directed verdict and JNOV standards; weight vs sufficiency separate)
- Vaxter v. State, 744 So.2d 846 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (intent to transfer can be proven without actual transfer)
- Rule 11.03(1) discussion, none (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (indictment must allege previous convictions with particulars)
- Short v. State, 929 So.2d 420 (Miss.Ct. App. 2006) (on enhanced-sentencing steps; on-record finding necessary)
- Williams v. State, 766 So.2d 815 (Miss.Ct. App. 2000) (timing and notice for amendments; fair opportunity to defend)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (three-factor proportionality framework for rare gross disproportionality cases)
- Hudderson v. State, 941 So.2d 221 (Miss.Ct. App. 2006) (habits harsher penalties within statutory guidelines; proportions)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (speedy-trial four-factor test)