Lane v. State, 07-KA-59292
| Decision Date | 18 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-KA-59292,07-KA-59292 |
| Citation | 562 So.2d 1235 |
| Parties | Marron LANE v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
James N. Sherman, Jr., John T. Haltom, Indianola, for appellant.
Mike C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Jack B. Lacy, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before HAWKINS, P.J., and SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ.
Marron Lane and Monica Toomer were indicted by the Sunflower County Grand Jury on October 1, 1987, for conspiracy to possess cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, with intent to sell, barter, transfer or distribute the same in violation of Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 41-29-139(a)(2), (b)(1), (1972), as Amended. Lane was found guilty and sentenced to serve twenty (20) years with the Mississippi Department of Corrections with five (5) years suspended on the same terms and conditions as if he were on parole. Also, he was ordered to pay a fine and costs totaling $10,658.50. Lane appeals and assigns the following errors:
1. The trial court erred in overruling Marron Lane's motion for a directed verdict and overruling Marron Lane's motion for a new trial based on the conviction being against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and the verdict being contrary to law and the principles of justice and equity; and
2. The sentence imposed against the defendant by the trial court exceeded that provided for in Sec. 97-1-1, Mississippi Code of 1972, as Amended.
Without going into the details of the evidence, suffice to say that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and the prosecution produced sufficient evidence upon which the jury could convict.
The standards for this Court's review of failure to grant a directed verdict or a motion for new trial are well established. For a directed verdict we must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. A motion for a new trial is discretionary with the trial judge and we will not order a new trial unless convinced that the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice. May v. State, 460 So.2d 778 (Miss.1985). When we apply those tests to this record there is no merit to this assignment of error.
Lane takes the position that when you read the indictment against him along with the conspiracy statute he could only be fined five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) and imprisoned for not more than five (5) years, or both, in accord with Sec. 97-1-1(h), Miss.Code Ann. (1972), as Amended.
Lane was sentenced to twenty (20) years with five (5) years suspended along with a fine of $10,000.00 and court costs of $658.50. It must be remembered that Lane was indicted for conspiracy to commit a crime in violation of Sec. 41-29-139(a)(1).
Miss.Code Ann., Sec. 97-1-1 (1972), as Amended, provides in pertinent part as follows:
Sec. 97-1-1. Conspiracy.
If two (2) or more persons conspire either:
(a) To commit a crime; or
* * * * * *
(h) To accomplish any unlawful purpose, or a lawful purpose by any unlawful means, such persons, and each of them, shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or by imprisonment of not more than five (5) years, or both. (Emphasis Added).
However, the statute goes further to provide for enhanced sentencing for specific conspiracy crimes as follows:
Provided, that where the crime conspired to be committed ... is a violation of section 41-29-139(b)(1) ... Mississippi Code of 1972, being provisions of the Uniform Controlled Substances Law, the offense shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) or by imprisonment for not more than twenty (20) years, or by both. (Emphasis Added).
Lane argues that as he was indicted under Sec. 41-29-139(a)(1) and not Sec. 139(b)(1), therefore, his sentence should not have been over five years or five thousand dollars. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 41-29-139 provides in pertinent part as follows:
Sec. 41-29-139. Prohibited acts; penalties.
(1) To sell, barter, transfer, manufacture, distribute, dispense or possess with intent to sell, barter, transfer, manufacture, distribute or dispense, a controlled substance; or ...
* * * * * *
(1) In the case of controlled substances classified in Schedule I or II, as set out in Section 41-29-113 and 41-29-115, ... such person may, upon conviction, be imprisoned for not more than thirty (30) years and shall be fined not less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) nor more than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), or both.
Lane's argument has surface appeal but lacks depth. Section 41-29-139(a)(1) is merely the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...injustice. Veal v. State, 585 So.2d 693, 695 (Miss.1991); Gibson v. State, 580 So.2d 739, 741 (Miss.1991); Lane v. State, 562 So.2d 1235, 1236-37 (Miss.1990). There was evidence that something did indeed happen to M.J.. Booth discovered M.J. with her son's penis in her mouth. When asked whe......
-
Corley v. State, 07-KA-59449
...the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow the verdict to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice. Lane v. State, 562 So.2d 1235, 1236-37 (Miss.1990). We view all of the evidence in the light most consistent with the verdict and we give the State all favorable inferences......
-
Mitchell v. State
...not guilty. Our scope of review is as limited as it is familiar. See Jones v. State, 567 So.2d 1189, 1191 (Miss.1990); Lane v. State, 562 So.2d 1235, 1236-37 (Miss.1990); Brown v. State, 556 So.2d 338, 340 (Miss.1990); Stringer v. State, 548 So.2d 125, 128-29 (Miss.1989). For example, in We......
-
McDonald v. State, 2002-KA-02051-COA.
...to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Crowley v. State, 791 So.2d 249, 253 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.2000), citing Lane v. State, 562 So.2d 1235, 1237 (Miss.1990). When a motion for a new trial is made, the court must accept as true all evidence that favors the verdict. Youngblood v. State,......