Jones v. State

380 So.3d 974

Eric Dejuan JONES a/k/a Eric D. Jones a/k/a Eric Jones, Appellant

v.STATE of Mississippi, Appellee

NO. 2022-KA-00235-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

02/27/2024

JEFFERSON DAVIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, HON. PRENTISS GREENE HARRELL, JUDGE

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: ZAKIA B. CHAMBERLAIN

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ALEXANDRA LEBRON

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., GREENLEE AND McCARTY, JJ.

WILSON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Following a jury trial, Eric Jones was convicted of aggravated trafficking of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or transfer, possession of a firearm by a felon, and possession of a stolen firearm. On appeal, Jones argues that the trial court erred by granting the State’s pretrial motion to amend the aggravated trafficking charge of the indictment. He also argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for the two drug charges and possession of a stolen firearm.¹ In the alternative, he argues that he is entitled to a new trial on the drug charges because the jury’s verdicts on those charges are contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

¶2. The trial court did not err by granting the State’s motion to amend the indictment, and Jones is not entitled to a judgment of acquittal or a new trial on the drug charges. However, the evidence is insufficient to sustain Jones’s conviction for possession of a stolen firearm. Therefore, we reverse his conviction and render a judgment of acquittal on that count alone. We affirm Jones’s convictions and sentences in all other respects.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3. On July 27, 2019, after receiving information that drugs were being sold at a residence on Tyrone Drive in Prentiss, Detective Richard Browning of the Prentiss Police Department and other law enforcement officers searched the residence pursuant to a warrant. Inside the residence, they found Jones, a large quantity of drugs, and a stolen firearm. Chris Fairley and Lateria Beale were also on the premises but outside of the house. "[P]rior to" obtaining the warrant, Browning "knew that" the house was "Eric Jones’s residence." Browning "verified" that information by confirming with the Town of Prentiss Water Department that Jones had applied for, obtained, and continued to maintain water service for the home.

¶4. In the "front room" of the house, officers found "a pretty large bag" of "crystallized substance," two digital scales, a pipe, and a red book or "ledger," all on a table in plain view. Browning testified that the ledger listed numerous drug sales using slang or coded language for the sub- stance sold,² along with the buyer’s name and the amount paid or owed. Browning further testified that based on his experience, the digital scales found in close proximity to drugs were likely used to distribute the drugs. Browning also found a bag in the front room that contained a large quantity of "green leafy substance," a large quantity of "crystallized substance," about thirty "multi-colored dosage pills," and a loaded handgun. According to Browning, the totality of the evidence found in the front room "paint[ed] a business."

¶5. The house had three bedrooms, but Browning testified only one was a "working bedroom," which was "Eric Jones’s bedroom." Browning testified that this bedroom had a made-up bed with sheets, blankets, and clothes in the closet. The other two bedrooms were filled with "junk and overturned furniture" or "tools," and the beds had no sheets or pillows on them.

¶6. The working bedroom’s closet also contained a safe in which the officers found "much larger" amounts of the "green leafy substance," "lots more crystallized substance," and more multi-colored pills. In another room, law enforcement found a "debilitated dresser" containing $2,313 in cash. Browning testified that based on his experience working drug cases, the circumstances suggested that a "full-blown" "narcotics distribution" business was being operated out of the house. Officers seized the evidence they found and arrested Jones. Forensic chemists from the federal Drug Enforcement Agency confirmed that the green leafy substance was marijuana (approximately 587 grams total) and that the crystallized substance was methamphetamine (over 400 grams total).

¶7. A Jefferson Davis County grand jury indicted Jones for aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine, possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or transfer, possession of a firearm by a felon, and possession of a stolen firearm. Prior to trial, the State moved to amend the indictment as to the aggravated trafficking charge. Jones was initially indicted for aggravated trafficking for possessing over 200 grams of methamphetamine with the intent to sell or transfer the drugs. See Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139(f)-(g) (Rev. 2018). The State moved to amend that count to allege aggravated trafficking based on simple possession of the same quantity of methamphetamine. See id. The court granted the State’s motion.

¶8. Following a jury trial, Jones was convicted of the four counts. The court sentenced Jones to consecutive terms of life imprisonment for aggravated trafficking, forty years for possession with intent, ten years for possession of a firearm by a felon, and five years for possession of a stolen firearm. Jones was sentenced as a second or subsequent drug offender and nonviolent habitual offender. See Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-147 (Rev. 2018); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81 (Rev. 2020). Jones filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, which was denied, and a notice of appeal.

ANALYSIS

¶9. On appeal, Jones argues that the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion to amend the indictment as to the aggravated trafficking charge. Jones also argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions for the two drug charges and for possession of a stolen firearm. In the alternative, he argues that the jury’s verdicts on the drug charges are contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

I. Amendment to the Indictment

¶10. Under Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-139(f), the offense of "trafficking in controlled substances" includes both possession with the intent to sell or transfer thirty or more grams of a Schedule I or II controlled substance (except for marijuana and synthetic cannabinoids)³ and simple possession of thirty or more grams of a Schedule I or II controlled substance (except for marijuana and synthetic cannabinoids).⁴ That is, proof of either possession with intent or simple possession can support a conviction for trafficking. Then, "[a]ny person trafficking" more than 200 grams of a Schedule I or II controlled substance "shall be guilty of aggravated trafficking." Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139(g). Thus, "aggravating trafficking" also includes both possession with intent and simple possession, and the threshold quantity (200 grams) is the same for either. Again, proof of either possession with intent or simple possession will support a conviction for aggravated trafficking if the possession involves more than 200 grams.

[1–4] ¶11. Here, Jones’s original indictment charged him with aggravated trafficking based on possession with the intent to deliver, sell, or transfer the drugs, Prior to trial, the circuit court granted the State’s motion to amend the indictment to charge aggravated trafficking based on simple possession. The court did not err by doing so.⁵ "Defendants in criminal cases have a constitutionally protected right to be informed of the nature and cause of charges brought against them. This requires that an indictment describe with precision and certainty each element of the offense charged." Lee v. State, 944 So. 2d 35, 38 (¶7) (Miss. 2006) (citations omitted). However, "[c]riminal defendants are deemed on notice of all the elements contained in the greater offense, and thus are likewise on notice of any other offense, the commission of which is necessarily included in the offense with which the defendant is charged in the indictment." Hye v. State, 162 So. 3d 750, 757 (¶20) (Miss. 2015). Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-5(1) (Rev. 2020) specifically provides that

[o]n an indictment for any offense the jury may find the defendant guilty of the offense as charged, or of any attempt to commit the same offense, or may find him guilty of an inferior offense, or other offense, the commission of which is necessarily included in the offense with which he is charged in the indictment, whether the same be a felony ormisdemeanor, without any additional count in the indictment for that purpose.

Id. (emphasis added).

[5] ¶12. In the present case, Jones’s original indictment charged him with aggravated trafficking based on his possession with the intent to deliver or sell over 200 grams of methamphetamine. The court’s order allowing the amendment simply deleted the language regarding an intent to deliver or sell and thereby amended the indictment to charge aggravated trafficking based on Jones’s simple possession of over 200 grams of methamphetamine. It is well-settled that simple possession is a lesser-included offense of possession with intent. E.g., Torrey v. State, 816 So. 2d 452, 454 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). Thus, Jones’s indictment for aggravated trafficking by possession with intent put him on notice that he could also be convicted for aggravated trafficking by simple possession. Accordingly, it was not even necessary to amend the indictment— the State could have simply requested a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of aggravated trafficking by simple possession. Id. In any event, the circuit court did not err by granting the State’s pretrial motion to amend the indictment.

II. Sufficiency and Weight of the Evidence

[6–10] ¶13. Jones next challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence as to both drug charges and the sufficiency of the evidence that he...