Dodson v. State, 55816
| Decision Date | 24 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 55816,55816 |
| Citation | 494 So.2d 575 |
| Parties | C.A. DODSON v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Jim Fraiser, Jackson, for appellant.
Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by John H. Emfinger, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before HAWKINS, P.J., and DAN M. LEE and SULLIVAN, JJ.
C.A. Dodson was convicted of possession of more than one ounce of marijuana by a jury of the First Judicial District of Hinds County and he was sentenced to three years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and fined $3,000.00. Feeling aggrieved, he appeals here and assigns the following errors:
I.
On this question we are controlled by Keys v. State, 478 So.2d 266, 267 (Miss.1985); Davis v. State, 431 So.2d 468 (Miss.1983); Smith v. State, 394 So.2d 1367 (Miss.1981); Bullock v. State, 391 So.2d 601 (Miss.1981); DePriest v. State, 377 So.2d 615 (Miss.1979). There is no merit to this assignment of error.
II.
The record before us does not sufficiently raise a question of whether there was non-exclusive possession of premises where contraband was found. Thus, the state was not required to prove additional incriminating details. Keys v. State, 478 So.2d 266 (Miss.1985); Powell v. State, 355 So.2d 1378 (Miss.1978). There is no merit to this assignment of error.
III.
The trial court properly found that the search warrant was issued upon probable cause. Harper v. State, 485 So.2d 1064 (Miss.1986); Henry v. State, 486 So.2d 1209 (Miss.1986); Garvis v. State, 483 So.2d 312 (Miss.1986); Lee v. State, 435 So.2d 674 (Miss.1983). There is no merit to this assignment of error.
IV.
The record is confused and unclear concerning whether this point was preserved for appeal or waived at trial and thus the question is not properly before us for review.
V.
The record demonstrates the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dodson's request for a new trial. Gray v. State, 487 So.2d 1304 (Miss.1986); Gavin v. State, 473 So.2d 952 (Miss.1985). There is no merit to this assignment of error.
VI.
What has been stated previously controls this question. There is no merit to this assignment of error.
Finding no merit to any of the assigned errors, we accordingly affirm.
AFFIRMED.
ANDERSON, J., not participating.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watts v. State, 96-DP-01030-SCT.
...The issue is procedurally barred by Watts' failure to object at trial. Wells v. State, 604 So.2d 271, 276 (Miss.1992); Dodson v. State, 494 So.2d 575 (Miss.1986). As distinguished from Harrison v. State, 635 So.2d 894 (Miss.1994), upon which Watts relies, where the circuit court erred in ov......
-
Boches v. State
...of the offense charged. Keys, 478 So.2d at 267. See also, Bunkley v. State, 495 So.2d 1 (Miss.1986) (affirming Keys ); Dodson v. State, 494 So.2d 575 (Miss.1986) (same); Mack v. State, 481 So.2d 793 (Miss.1985) (same). True no confession exists in this case but the prosecution is not wholly......
-
Wells v. State
...veiled claim of discovery violation, there is no record of an objection, and the point would not be preserved for appeal. Dodson v. State, 494 So.2d 575 (Miss.1986); Johnson v. State, 475 So.2d 1136 (Miss.1985); Robinson v. State, 345 So.2d 1044 II. The court erred in allowing into evidence......