Sutton v. State

337 So.3d 208

Sedric Q. SUTTON a/k/a Sedric Sutton a/k/a Cedric Quintorus Sutton

v.STATE of Mississippi

NO. 2020-CP-01322-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

February 3, 2022

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: SEDRIC Q. SUTTON (PRO SE)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DREW DOUGLAS GUYTON, Jackson

BEFORE KING, P.J., MAXWELL AND GRIFFIS, JJ.

KING, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Sedric Sutton seeks compensation under Mississippi Code Sections 11-44-1 to -15 (Rev. 2019), Compensation to Victims of Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment, after his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute was vacated by this Court. He argues that his conviction was reversed on grounds not inconsistent with innocence and that the crime he committed was not a felony. Because Sutton failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of a material fact, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. A confidential informant disclosed to the Washington County Sheriff's Department that stolen items were located at 331 Muscadine Street in Greenville, Mississippi. The sheriff's department then obtained a search warrant for stolen items. As a result of the search, law enforcement detained Sutton and found $4,995 in cash, a handgun, two digital scales, and, on Sutton's person, sixty pills of hydrocodone in a plastic bag. Sutton subsequently signed and filed a petition to enter a guilty plea, admitting to the crimes of possession of a controlled substance and felon in possession of a firearm. However, Sutton was ultimately tried before a jury.

¶3. On May 26, 2016, a Washington County jury convicted Sutton of the possession of a Schedule III controlled substance with intent to distribute.¹ On June 1, 2016, the trial judge sentenced Sutton as a habitual offender to serve the maximum sentence of fifteen years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Sutton appealed his conviction and, on March 15, 2018, this Court found that "[a]ll of the State's evidence in the case stemmed from an unconstitutional search pursuant to an invalid warrant which failed adequately to describe the property to be seized by the executing officers." Sutton v. State , 238 So. 3d 1150, 1153 (Miss. 2018). The warrant had described the property to be seized as "stolen property." Id. at 1157. This Court found that "[t]he description ‘stolen property’ is no description." Id. (internal quotation mark omitted). Therefore, this Court reversed Sutton's conviction and vacated his sentence. Id. at 1153.

¶4. On April 10, 2018, the trial judge entered an order of nolle prosequi. Sutton filed a complaint for wrongful conviction and imprisonment under Mississippi Code Sections 11-44-1 to -15. Section 11-44-1 provides that "innocent persons who have been wrongly convicted of felony crimes and subsequently imprisoned have been uniquely victimized, have distinct problems reentering society, and should be compensated." Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-1 (Rev. 2019).

¶5. The State filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment and argued that, because Sutton had admitted to the crime of possession of a controlled substance, he was not innocent and could not recover under the statute.

¶6. The trial court granted the State's motion for summary judgment and found that Sutton had "failed to create a genuine issue of material fact by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not commit the felon[y] for which he was sentenced or that the acts or omissions for which he was sentenced did not constitute a felony." The trial court found that Sutton's conviction had been reversed based on insufficient language in the search warrant and not on grounds not inconsistent with innocence; therefore, his claim was insufficient for compensation under the wrongful conviction act.

¶7. Sutton, pro se, appeals the trial court's decision and raises two issues: 1) whether his conviction was reversed on grounds not inconsistent with innocence; and 2) whether the acts for which he was sentenced constituted a felony.

ANALYSIS

¶8. "The decision of a circuit court to grant or deny a summary judgment is reviewed de novo ." Tipton v. State , 150 So. 3d 82, 84 (Miss. 2014) (citing Poppenheimer v. Est. of Coyle , 98 So. 3d 1059, 1062 (Miss. 2012) ). Additionally, unlike in a criminal case, "the plaintiff in a civil action seeking damages from the State for his wrongful conviction bears the burden of proof." Isaac v. State , 187 So. 3d 1009, 1012 (Miss. 2016) (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7(1) (Rev. 2012)).

I. Whether Sutton's conviction was reversed on grounds not inconsistent with innocence.

¶9. Mississippi Code Section 11-44-3 provides that

(1) In order to present an actionable claim for wrongful conviction and imprisonment under this chapter, a claimant must establish by documentary evidence that:

(a) The claimant had been convicted of one or more felonies and subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment and has served all or any part of the sentence;

(b) On grounds not inconsistent with innocence:

....

(ii) The judgment of conviction was vacated and/or reversed;

(c) If there was a vacatur or reversal, either the accusatory instrument was dismissed or nol prossed; ....

Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-3(1) (Rev. 2019). Therefore, in order to bring a wrongful conviction claim, Sutton must first establish that his conviction was reversed "[o]n grounds not inconsistent with innocence[.]" Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-3(1)(b) (Rev. 2019). The State argues that Sutton cannot establish this prerequisite because this Court reversed Sutton's conviction not on innocence grounds but based on an evidentiary sanction. Therefore, the State contends that Sutton is ineligible to bring a wrongful conviction compensation claim.

¶10. "The Fourth Amendment protects the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ " Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229, 236, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 2426, 180 L.Ed. 2d 285 (2011) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. IV ). It requires that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV. However, "[t]he amendment says nothing about suppressing evidence obtained in violation of this command." Davis , 564 U.S. at 236, 131 S.Ct. 2419. "Exclusion is ‘not a personal constitutional right,’ nor is it designed to ‘redress the injury’ occasioned by an unconstitutional search." Id. (quoting Stone v. Powell , 428 U.S. 465, 486, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed. 2d 1067 (1976) ). The sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to "deter future Fourth Amendment violations." Id. at 236-37, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 2426. Therefore, the United States Supreme Court has "limited the rule's operation to situations in which this purpose is ‘thought most efficaciously served.’ " Id. at 237, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 2426 (quoting United States v. Calandra , 414 U.S. 338, 348, 94 S. Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed. 2d 561 (1974) ). This is because

Exclusion exacts a heavy toll on both the judicial system and society at large. It almost always requires courts to ignore reliable, trustworthy evidence bearing on guilt or innocence. And its bottom-line effect, in many cases, is to suppress the truth and set the criminal loose in the community without punishment. Our cases hold that society must swallow this bitter pill when necessary, but only as a "last resort."

Id. (citations omitted). This Court follows the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in construing the Fourth Amendment. Isaacks v. State , 350 So. 2d 1340, 1343 (Miss. 1977).

¶11. In Sutton's case, this Court found that "[a]ll of the State's evidence in the case stemmed from an unconstitutional search pursuant to an invalid warrant which failed adequately to describe the property to be seized by the executing officers." Sutton , 238 So. 3d at 1153. Therefore, the evidence seized as a result of the illegal search was subject to the exclusionary rule. This Court previously has stated that "[w]hen evidence is obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, a judicially-created exclusionary rule typically precludes use of the evidence in any criminal proceedings against one subjected to an illegal search and seizure." Baker v. State , 802 So. 2d 77, 79 (Miss. 2001) (citing Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961) ). The State emphasizes this Court's statement that the evidence is excluded "in any criminal proceedings" and argues that the instant case is civil. It contends that the defective search warrant did not erase the existence of the inadmissible evidence. We agree. While the Fourth Amendment requires that this Court ignore the evidence in a criminal prosecution, the same is not required when looking at the threshold requirements under the wrongful conviction statute. Excluding the evidence in Sutton's wrongful imprisonment suit would not serve the purpose of the exclusionary rule. Therefore, this Court is not required to ignore the evidence collected as a result of the search in this case.

¶12. Further, the United States Supreme Court has noted that there is a difference between factual innocence and legal insufficiency. Bousley v. United States , 523 U.S. 614, 118 S. Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed. 2d 828 (1998). Sutton's conviction was reversed based on legal insufficiency. Sutton admitted to the possession of a scheduled substance without a prescription. The search also revealed a significant amount of cash, two digital scales, and a firearm. Accordingly, Sutton's conviction was not reversed on grounds not inconsistent with innocence. See Coyle v. State , 492 P.3d 366, 374 (Colo. App. 2021) ("Convictions that are reversed only because of procedural or evidentiary errors or structural deficiencies at trial that could be consistent with actual innocence but lack any connection to it (i.e., lack a tendency to show actual innocence)...