Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 10/01/96 OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 93-KA-01087 COA

EDWARD LEON SMITH & ALLAN DALE TUCKER APPELLANTS v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT G. EVANS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JASPER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: TRAVIS BUCKLEY ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: MICHAEL C. MOORE, WAYNE SNUGGS, DEWITT T. ALLRED III DISTRICT ATTORNEY: DEWITT L. FORTENBERRY JR. NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: POSSESSION WITH THE INTENT TO MANUFACTURE A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, TO-WIT MARIJUANA IN AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN ONE OUNCE, BUT LESS THAN ONE KILOGRAM; SENTENCED TO SERVE 6 YEARS IN MDOC

BEFORE BRIDGES, P.J., COLEMAN, AND DIAZ, JJ. BRIDGES, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

Edward Smith and Allan Tucker were convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to manufacture, and each were sentenced to six (6) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Smith and Tucker argue on appeal that the trial court erred in denying their motions for directed verdict. We find no merit in the Appellants' argument and therefore, affirm. FACTS On June 1, 1992, a deputy pursued an automobile containing Smith, Tucker, and Patrick Russell, after the driver ran a stop sign. They at first evaded the deputy. Jeff Crumpton then witnessed a duffel bag being thrown from the vehicle when it was out of eyesight of the pursuing deputy. After noticing that the same automobile was being chased by a deputy, Crumpton phoned the authorities and reported the duffel bag. The vehicle was subsequently stopped, and the three men were held while the duffel bag was retrieved and brought to the scene. The three men were arrested after it was determined that the duffel bag contained marijuana. Smith, Tucker, and Russell were jointly indicted for possession with intent to manufacture marijuana in violation of section 41-29-139 of the Mississippi Code. The men were to be tried jointly, and Russell agreed to plead guilty and testify for the State. Russell testified that on the day in question, he drove to Smith's home where Tucker and Smith had been waiting. The three men then drove to a place in Jasper County where the three men had jointly cultivated a "patch" of marijuana for a few months. Tucker waited with the car while Smith and Russell went and "topped off" or harvested the marijuana and placed it in the duffel bag which was the one later ejected from the car. Tucker then picked up Smith and Russell, and the three men left in the automobile with the duffel bag containing the marijuana. The three were stopped by the sheriff's deputy shortly thereafter. Smith and Tucker were subsequently convicted of possession with intent to manufacture and were sentenced each to a term of six years.

ARGUMENT AND DISCUSSION OF THE LAW I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY REFUSING TO DIRECT A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY ON THE CHARGE OF POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA WITH THE INTENT TO MANUFACTURE.

Smith and Tucker (hereinafter the "Appellants") both argue on appeal that the trial court erred in denying their motions for directed verdict. Their argument centers around the contention that they could not be guilty of possession with intent to manufacture because, in fact, they were apprehended

with the finished product, and there was no manufacturing left to be done. We disagree with this contention and therefore, affirm. This Court's standard of review for a denial of a motion for directed verdicts is as follows: In passing upon a motion for a directed verdict, all evidence introduced by the state is accepted as true, together with any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, and, if there is sufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty, the motion for directed verdict must be overruled.

Gray v. State, 549 So. 2d 1316, 1318 (Miss. 1989) (citing Guilbeau v. State, 502 So. 2d 639, 641 (Miss. 1987)). The Appellants were charged with a violation of section 41-29-139(a)(1) of the 1972 Mississippi Code which reads in pertinent part: (a) Except as authorized by this article, it is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally:

(1) To sell, barter, transfer, manufacture, distribute, dispense or possess with intent to sell, barter, transfer, manufacture, distribute or dispense, a controlled substance;

Miss. Code Ann.

Download Edward Leon Smith v. State of Mississippi.pdf

Mississippi Law