Branning v. State
Decision Date | 09 June 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 45411,45411 |
Parties | Jack Rush BRANNING v. STATE of Mississippi. |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
A. S. Scott, Jr., Henry S. Davis, Jr., Laurel, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
The appellant, Jack Rush Branning, was convicted in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County, Mississippi, of the possession of narcotics contrary to the provisions of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act of 1962, which is Sections 6844-6866 Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (Supp.1968). This being a third offense, as defined in Section 6866, the court sentenced him to pay a fine of $2,000 and to serve twenty years in the state penitentiary.
The appellant assigned as error:
(1) The lower court erred in overruling the demurrer to the indictment because two of the offenses were committed and the appellant convicted of them before the enactment of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act of 1962, and, therefore, the 1962 law was an ex post facto law.
(2) The lower court erred in overruling the demurrer to the indictment because the indictment 'revealed appellant's prior convictions to the jury before the current charge was adjudicated.'
(3) The lower court erred in granting the following instruction to the State:
'The Court instructs the Jury for the State of Mississippi that under the law, identity of name of the Defendant and the person previously convicted is prima facie evidence of identity of person, and if you believe from the evidence in this, beyond a reasonable doubt that the name of the Defendant in this case and the name of the person previously convicted are the same, then you would be warranted in the presumption that they are in fact the same person.'
Section 5, Chapter 397, General Laws of 1962 (Section 6866 Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (Supp.1968)) does not constitute an ex post facto law. The portion of this law questioned by the appellant provides:
The argument of the appellant was answered by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Gryger v. Burke 334 U.S. 728, 68 S.Ct. 1256, 92 L.Ed. 1683 (1948), wherein Mr. Justice Jackson, speaking for the Court, said:
334 U.S. at 732, 68 S.Ct. at 1258, 92 L.Ed. at 1687. (Emphasis added). See also Gomez v. Texas, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 30, 280 S.W.2d 278 (1955).
In this case the third offense was committed on April 15, 1968, six years after the passage of the act increasing the penalty that could be imposed for a third offense.
In a 1961 case before the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court said:
'The constitutionality of second offender statutes has frequently been upheld under similar circumstances. In McDonald v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1901, 180 U.S. 311, 312, 21 S.Ct. 389, 390, 45 L.Ed. 542, it was stated:
'Further the court stated at page 313 of 180 U.S., at page 390 of 21 S.C t.:
Wey Him Fong v. United States, 287 F.2d 525 at 526 (9th Cir.1961).
In New Jersey v. Taylor, 72 N.J.Super. 388, 178 A.2d 266 (1962), in ruling on a similar case to the case at bar, the court said:
'Does the fact that the New Jersey Uniform Narcotic Drug Law providing for increased penalties was adopted in 1953, and that one or more of the defendant's convictions occurred before 1953, cause this to fall within the interdiction of an ex post facto law? This problem was met in the Hightower case (People v. Hightower, 414 Ill. 537, 112 N.E.2d 126 (S.Ct.1953)), and the determination made that this penalty (provision) for increased penalties where one of the convictions antedated the effective date of the statute was not an ex post facto law:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
King v. State, 94-DP-00216-SCT
...third drug related offense, even though the defendant's first two convictions occurred prior to the enactment of the Act; Branning v. State, 224 So.2d 579 (Miss.1969). In each of the previous cases we held that the defendant had not been subjected to an ex post facto law in violation of U.S......
-
Chism v. Middlebrooks
... ... (MDOC) without the possibility of parole. The relevant facts ... are accurately described in the state court's opinion and ... are incorporated here verbatim ... Officer ... Angela Nichols of the Jackson Police ... repetitive one." Smith v. State , 465 So.2d 999, ... 1003 (Miss. 1985) (emphasis added) (quoting Branning v ... State , 224 So.2d 579, 580-81 (Miss. 1969)). Chism's ... life sentence-the one for ... which he seeks leave to file a PCR ... ...
-
Lay v. State, 48425
...285 So.2d 783 (Miss.1973); Ladnier v. State, 273 So.2d 169 (Miss.1973); McGowan v. State, 269 So.2d 645 (Miss.1972); and Branning v. State, 224 So.2d 579 (Miss.1969). In a case involving Tennessee statutes on habitual offenders, the United States Supreme Court in Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U.S......
-
Hicks v. State
...and sentence of the court in cause numbers 7532 and 7866 introduced into evidence, as well as this Court's holding in Branning v. State, 224 So.2d 579, 580 (Miss.1969). In Branning, 224 So.2d at 580, the State sought to increase the criminal penalties against Branning, pursuant to Section 6......