I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - KA- 0 1 7 8 2 - S CT KI RBY DI ESa / k / a KI RBY DON OV

AN DI ES

v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 25/ 2004 TRI AL J UD GE: CO UR T F RO M WHI CH AP P E AL E D: HON
. LE E J
. HOW ARD LOWN DES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : G A R Y S T R E E T G O O D W IN ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : J EFFR EY A
. K LI N G FU SS F OR RE S T AL L GOOD NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 20/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. CO BB, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. K i rby D onovan D i es i s befor e t hi s C our ton appea l of hi s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on
o f c o c a in e in th e L o w n d e s C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt. H e w a s se n ten c e d to se rv e e ig h t y e a rs in t he cus t odyof t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epar t m entof C or r ect i ons , and pay a $50, 000 fi ne as habi tual

o ff en d er. O n ap p ea l, D ies arg u es th at t h e tri al co u rt erred : (1 ) by o v erru li n g the d ef en d an t’ s pr et r i al m ot i on t o di s m i s s for vi ol at i on of t he st atut or y 270- day rul e; and ( 2) bydeny i ng t he

### 2

defe ndant ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence obt ai ned as i tw as t he r es ul tof an i l l egal s ei zur e. F in d in g n o m e rit to th e se a rg u m e n ts, w e a f f irm th e trial c o u rt. FACTS ¶2. D ur i ng t he ear l y m or ni ng hour s of M ay 1, 2002, A gent s B r ent Y oung and W es St app of t he M i s s i s s i ppi B ur eau of N ar cot i cs ( t he age nt s ) w er e di s pat ched t o t he O ffi ce Spor t s B ar (th e b a r) in C o lu m b u s, M iss iss ip p i. T h e yh a d re c e iv e d a c a ll a b o u t a “ f e m a le o f in ter e st”

w ho w as ei t heri n pos s es s i on of nar cot i cs ort ry i ng t o s el l nar cot i cs att hatl ocat i on. U pon
ar r i vi ng at t he bar they par ked i n t he par ki ng l ot l ocat ed at t he re ar of t he bui l di ng. A s t hey

w ere pul l i ng i nto t he parki ng l ot, Y ou ng no t i ced t hree i nd i vidual s, on e fem al e and t w o m al es,
s ittin g in a re d c a m a ro n e a r t h e c o rn e r o f th e b u ild in g . ¶ 3
. T h e a g e n ts de c id e d to w a it f o r th e in d iv id u a ls in th e re d c a m a ro to e x it th e ir v e h icle and ent ert he barbefor e t hey di d t he s ame, beca us e St app had been a uni for m ed pol i ce of fi cer i n C ol um bus , and w as conce r ned t hat he m i ght be r ecogni zed. O t hert han t he gende rof t he i ndi vi dual s i n t he vehi cl e, t he age nt s w er e notabl e t o as cer t ai n anyot herdes cr i pt i ve i nfor m at i on. T he age nt s exi t ed t hei rvehi cl e and w al ked t o a nearby w i ndow t o l ook i ns i de t he bart o s ee i f a w om an mat chi ng t he des cr i pt i on t hatt heyw er e gi ven w as pr es ent
. T hey di d nots ee a nys uch w om an and ther efor e r etur ned t o t hei rvehi cl e. ¶4. A s t heyw er e r etur ni ng t o t hei rvehi cl e t heypas s ed nea rt he re d camar o and not i ced the d ist inct sm ell o f b u rnt m arij u an a. T h e a g en ts trac ed th e sm ell b ac k to the red C am aro
w hi ch had i t s pas s engerw i ndow r o ll ed- dow n one t o t w o i nches , and t hen cont act ed t he

### 3

C o lu m b u s P o lice D e p a rtm e n t an d re q u e ste d th a t a K -9 u n it c o m e to m e e t th e m . T h e a g e n ts agr eed thatt heyw ant ed t o i nves t i gat e fur t her but not i n t he bar ’ s par ki ng l ot
. T heycont act ed t he C ol um bus Pol i ce D epar t m entbeca us e t heyw ant ed t o conduct a t r aff i c s t op aw ayfr om t hei rpr es entl ocat i on. T he age nt s t es t i fi ed t hat the bar w as about t o cl os e and t he parki ng l ot

w oul d s oon be cr ow ded w i t h pat r ons , s om e undert he i nfl uence of al cohol
. T her efor e, t hey desi r ed a c onfr ont at i on aw ayfr om t hi s envi r onm ent
. Fur t her , t heyneede d t he C ol um bus P o li ce D epar t m ent ’ s as s i s t ance beca us e theyw er e i n an unmar ked vehi cl e and l acke d t he b lu e lig h ts n e c e s s a ry to in d ic a te a tr a f f ic s to p . ¶5. O ffi cerW ade Bear d of the C o lum b u s P o li ce D epar t m entm ett he age nt s at t he C r eeks t one C hevr on, l ocat ed acr os s t he st r eet fr om t he bar , w her e t heyhad a f ul l vi ew of t he exi tand entr ance t o t he parki ng l ot
. T he age nt s t ol d B ear d t hatt heys m el l ed bur ntm ar i j uana i n a parked ca rand t heyw ant ed hi m t o conducta t r aff i c st op al ong t he r oadw ayaft ert he ca r l eft
. T heygave hi m a ful l des cr i pt i on of t he ca rand al er t ed hi m w hen i tl eft
. B ear d fol l ow ed t he r ed ca m ar o fora s hor tper i od of t i m e and then i ni t i at ed hi s bl ue l i ght s . T he ca rdi d not im m ed iat elyresp o n d an d co n ti n u ed d o w n the s tr ee t fo r ap p rox im at el y1 /10 th o f a m il e b ef o re pul l i ng i nt o a dr i vew ayof a r es i dence t hat j oi ned t he r oad. T he agent s fol l ow ed B ear d but

r emai ned i n s uppor tof hi m ata s afe di s t ance . O nce s t opped, an i ndi vi dual , l at erdet er m i ned t o be D i es , exi t ed t he dr i ver ’ s s i de of t he r ed camar o and fl ed on footi nt o t he w ooded ar ea al ong t he dr i vew ay . T he agent s pur s ued hi m , fi r s t by car and t hen on foot , i nt o t he w ooded

ar ea.

### 4

¶6. T he i ndi vi dual w as l ocat ed i n t he w oods and pl ace d under arr es t for fai l ur e t o y i el d, di s obey i ng a pol i ce of

fi cerand re s i s t i ng arr es t
. A s t he age nt s r etur ned t o t he r oad w i t h t he

ar r es t ed s ubj ect , t hey w er e i nfor m ed byanot heroffi cert hats om eone ha d dr opped s om et hi ng on t he gr ound. O n t he gr ound n ea r th e side of t he r oad Y oung found s ever al bags of a

s ubs ta nce thatl at erw as i dent i fi ed as m ar i j uana. T her e w er e fi ve bags , fourof w hi ch

c o n tain e d m a riju a n a a n d o n e th a t w a s e m p ty . Y o u n g th e n c o n d u c ted a se a rc h in c id e n t to
ar r es tof t he s ubj ectand on hi s per s on found a s i xt h bag of a s ubs t ance , w hi ch w as i n s i m i l ar p ac k ag ing to the o n es that w ere fo u n d ly ing o n the g rou n d , an d also d isco v ere d roll ing p ap ers
a n d a p o w d e ry w h ite s u b s ta n c e w h ic h w a s la te r i d e n tif ie d a s c o c a in e . I . THE 2 7 0 - DAY RULE ¶7. D i es as s er t s t hat hi s s t atut or y r i ght to a spee dy t r i al under M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 99- 17- 1 ( R ev. 2000) w as vi ol at ed, but does not as s er t a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. T he s t atut e,
com m on l yrefer red t o as t he 2 70 -dayrul e, reads as fol l ow s: U n les s g o o d c a u se b e sh o w n , a n d a c o n tin u a n c e d u lyg ra n ted b yth e c o u rt, all offe ns es for w hi ch i ndi ct m ent s ar e pr es ent ed t o t he cour ts hal l be t r i ed no l at er t han t w o hundr ed s eventy( 270) day s aft ert he ac cus ed has been a r r ai gned. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 17- 1 ( R ev. 2000)
. W hen t he acc us ed i s notbr oughtt o t r i al w i t hi n 270 d a y s , a b s e n t g o o d c a u s e , th e d e f e n d a n t is e n title d to d is m is s a l. R e y n o ld s v . S ta te , 784 So. 2d 929, 933 ( M i s s . 2001)
. D i es al l eges t hatt he S tat e vi ol at ed t he 270- dayrul e w hen he w as i ndi ct ed on A ugus t9 and arr ai gned on A ugus t 23, 2002 butnott r i ed unt i l A ugus t23, 2004. T her efo r e, D i es ar gues he i s ent i t l ed t o have hi s convi ct i on r ever s ed and the i ndi ct m ent

### Thi s Court ha s be e n c l e ar

that the c l oc k s t art s at

the t i m e of arr a i gnm e nt

and not 1 

### at th e tim e o f

arrest. H

a n d ley v. Sta te , 5 7 4 S o . 2 d6 7 1 , 6 7 4 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 0 )
. T h e t i me p erio dp rio r to arraig nm en t is n o t relev an t in2 7 0 -d ay ru le cases. N

a tio n s v. Sta te , 481 S o . 2 d7 6 0 , 7 6 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). 5 di s m i s s ed w i t h pr ej udi ce. W e di s agr ee, bas ed on ourcar efu l revi ew of t he r ecor d, and t he analy si s w hich foll ow s. ¶8. T his C ou rt has cr eat ed a t w o-st ep tes tfor deali ng w i t h 2 70 -dayrul e analy si s. T he fi rs t ste p is to d e ter m in e th e to tal n u m b e r o f d a y s b e tw e e n a rra ig n m e n t an d trial. Ma n ix v . S ta te , 1 8 9 5 S o . 2 d 1 6 7 , 1 7 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ); S h a rp v . S ta te , 7 8 6 S o . 2 d 3 7 2 , 3 7 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ). F o r th is purpos e, t he dat e of a r r ai gnm enti s not count ed but t he dat e of tr i al and w eeke nds ar e count ed

u n le s s th e 2 7 0 th d a yf

a lls o n a S u n d a y . A da m s v . S ta te , 5 8 3 S o . 2 d 1 6 5 , 1 6 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). T h e se c o n d ste p is t o c o n sid e r e a c h d e lay se p a ra tely , b e c a u se o n lyth o se d e lays a ttribu tab le to th e S ta te c o u n t to w a rd th e 2 7 0 d a y s . Ma n ix , 895 So. 2d at174; B a in e v . S ta te , 604 So. 2 d 2 5 8 , 2 6 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ). F o r th e se c o n d s te p th is C o u rt m u st d e ter m in e w h ich p a rtyis

re s p o n s ib le f

o r t h e d e la ya n d th e ir re a s o n . S h arp , 786 So. 2d at377. ¶ 9
. 

### T h e Au g u st 2 3 , 2 0 0 2 , arraig nm en t o rd er w as sig n ed as “ag reed ” b y state an d d ef

en se
co un sel, an dth e tr i a l w as set f o r D ecem b er 3 , 2 0 0 2 . “ T he nec es s aryt i m e fort he ac cus ed and hi s couns el t o pr epar e hi s t r i al m us t nece s s ar i l y be l eft l ar gel y t o t he s ound di s cr et i on of t he t r i al j udge, bear i ng i n m i nd t he fact s and ci r cumst ance s of t he par t i cul arcas e. ” Sharp, 786 So. 2d at 378 ( quot i ng W iley v . S ta te , 5 8 2 S o .2 d 1 0 0 8 , 1 0 1 2 (M iss .1 9 9 1 ); G il m or e v. S ta te , 2 2 5 M iss . 1 7 3 , 1 8 9 , 8 2 S o .2 d 8 3 8 , 8 4 6 (1 9 5 5 )). T h is tim e p e rio d d o e s n o t ap p e a r toT he t r ans cr i ptof t he t r i al r efl ect s t hatD i es ’ s uppr es s i on m ot i on w as hear d on t he 2 d a yo f trial. 

### 6 be over l yl engt hyforpr epar at i on of a drug r el at ed off ens e and ther efore d o es notcount
a g a in s t e ith e r t h e S ta te o r D ie s . See S h arp , 7 8 6 S o . 2 d a t 3 7 8 . T h e trial c o u rt d o c k e t re f lec ts th a t an a g re e d o rd e r o f

c o n tin u a n c e w a s f

iled o n D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 2 , ap p a re n tlyre f e rrin g to
an ag ree d o rde r en tered that d ate, se tt ing D ies’ m o ti o n fo r a su p p ression h ea ri n g fo r F eb rua ry 10, 2003. A su b seq u en tor der , fi l ed Februar y27, r es ett he s uppr es s i on hear i ng forM ay6, 2003, and couns el forbot h defe ns e and pr os ecut i on agr eed. T he rec or d i s s i l entas t o any hear i ng on M ay 6, w hi ch w as a m ot i on day , but an agr eed or derw as s i gned and e nt er ed on

2 M ay13 , 20 03 , st at i ng t hat the st at e’s m oti on for t ri al set t i ng , j oined by t he d efen dan t , m ust be cont i nued due t o “ca s e not s etfort r i al / cont i nued fr om m ot i on day ”, and s et t i ng fort r i al on M a y2 7
. Al t h o u g h t h e c o u r td o c k e ti n d i c a t e s t h a ta n a g r e e d o r d e ro f c o n t i n u a n c e was
s i gned and e nt er ed, nunc pr o tunc, on M ay 30, 2003, cont i nui ng t he t r i al dat e fr om M ay27, 2003, unt i l A ugus t 26, 2003, t he or der i t s el f does not i ndi cat e agr eement
. H ow ever , t he or der

s t at es as caus e fort he cont i nuance , t hat “t he St at e w as i n t r i al i n anothercaus e, anot herJ udge

w as notavai l abl e t o hear anot her j ur y t r i al , and Fr i day , M ay 30, 2003, i s t he l as t day of t he pr es entt er m of C i r cui tC our t
. ” T he cour tt hen or der ed t hatt he “c aus e be c ont i nued t o t he nextt er m ” and r es ch ed u l ed t he t r i al forA ugus t26, 2003. T he s ame pr obl em ar os e on A ugu st 2 6 , and anot heror derof cont i nuance w as s i gned and f i l ed, nunc pr o tunc, on Sept ember 5, 2003, w hi ch cont i nued the t r i al unt i l N ovember 18, 2003, s i m i l ar l y s t at i ng “t he

### 7

trial c o u rt w a s in trial o n a n o th e r c a u se , an d th e re w e re n o a d d iti o n a l trial d a tes a v a ilab le in th is te rm o f

c o u rt to h e a r th is c a se .” D ies a rg u e s t h is d e la y w a s a tt rib u tab le to th e S tate beca us e t he St at e ca n choos e w hi ch cas e t o br i ng and t he t r i al cour thad t he r i ghtt o ext end i t s t e r m. ¶10. H ow ever , i n bot h i ns t ance s , t he t r i al cour t found t he mot i on w as w el l t aken a nd i s s ued t he cont i nuance . N o chal l enge t o t hes e cont i nuance s , nor t he r eas on t heyw er e or der ed, w as
ra ise d b yD ies . T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t ev e n th o u g h th e sta tu to ry2 7 0 -d a yru le e x ists to pr ot e c ta d e f

e n d a n t ’ s r i g h t s , i td o e s n o tr e l i e v e t h e d e f e n d a n tf r o m t h e o b l i g a t i o n of

v ig o ro u s ly p u rs u in g th e m . W alton , 678 So. 2d 645, 650 ( M i s s . 1996)
. D i es fai l ed t o obj ect t o t he St at e’ s r eques t s forcont i nuance s and onl ypur s ued h is spe edyt r i al r i ghton J une 3, 2004, aft erni ne cont i nuance s had bee n gr ant ed. A l t hough a def endantm ayhave the r i ght to p roc u re a sp ee d ier tri al than that af fo rde d to him b ythe S tat e, t h is C o u rtd o es n o t r ew ard h im w h o s its o n h is ri g h ts
. ¶11. A t r i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ng t hata mot i on forcont i nuance i s w el l t aken, i s the e q u i val ent
o f a ju d ic ia l f

in d in g o f g o o d c a u s e . R eynol

ds , 784 So. 2d at 933. A t r i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ng of good caus e i s a fi ndi ng of fa ctand s houl d be t r eat ed on appe al as s uch; t her efor e a r evi ew i ng
co u rtsh o u ld n o t distu rb itw h ere there is sub stan ti al cred ible ev id e n ce in the rec o rd

s u p p o rt in g th a t f

in d in g . W

alton , 678 So. 2d at649 ( ci t i ng McN e a l v. S ta te , 617 So. 2d 999, 1 0 0 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 3 ); Fo lk v . S ta te , 5 7 6 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 4 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 )). L ikew ise, this C o u rt

w i l l notaff

i r m a t r i al cour t’ s fi ndi ng of fa cti f t he t r i al j udge appl i ed an e r r oneous l egal

### 8

s ta n d a rd
. W

alton , 678 So. 2d at649 ( ci t i ng L e a th e rw o o d v . S ta te , 539 So. 2d 1378, 1387 (M is s . 1 9 8 9 ))
. ¶12. T hi s C our t has hel d t hat a t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on t o gr ant a cont i nuance be ca u se of d o c k e t c o n g e s tio n d id n o t a b u s e t h is s ta n d a rd
. S h arp , 7 8 6 S o . 2 d at 37 8
. H o w ev er, th ere
m u st b e m o re tha n just a b ald f ac ed stat em en t w ith o u t som e f u rt h er su b stan ti ati o n . In V ick e ry v . S ta te , 5 3 5 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 1 , 1 3 7 5 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ), th e tria l c o u r t e n ter e d b o ilerp late

o rde rs st ati n g sim p ly“[ f]o r go o d ca u se sh o w n the f o ll o w in g n u m b ere d crim inal ca ses a re cont i nued t o t he nextr egul art er m of t hi s cour t , s ai d caus es ar e number ed on t he docke tof t hi s cour tas fol l ow s . . . . ” The or der s t hen l i s t ed as m an y 1 2 6 ca ses w hi ch w er e t o be cont i nued t o t he next t er m . T hi s C our thel d t hatt he t r i al cour t ’ s act i ons i n ent er i ng 8 “bl and and gene r i c” or der s s uch as t hi s ci r cumvent ed t he s t atut e and w as t ant amount t o abol i s hi ng it. Vickery , 535 So. 2d at 1 3 7 5
. T h e or der s forcont i nuance i n t he pr es entcas e cont ai ned

s peci fi c expl anat i ons as t o w hyt heyw er e gr ant ed, and onl y addr es s ed t he pr es entcas e and

ar e i n no w ay anal ogous t o t he “bl and and ge ner i c” or der s decr i ed i n Vickery
. See W alton , 678 So. 2d at 649. O ur r evi ew of t he r ecor d l eads t o t he conc l us i on t hatt her e w as s ubs t ant i al evidence o f real do cket confli ct s and c o n g e sti on w hich m eet s t he st and ard of “g oo d cau se
s how n”. T hus , t hes e del ay s m eet t he st andar d s et i n Sect i on 99- 17- 1, and the cl ock s t opped

a g a in s t th e S ta te a n d d id n o t c o u n t to w a rd th e 2 7 0 -d a yru le
. ¶13. T he next del ay , fr om N ovember 18, 2003 unt i l D ece m ber3, 2003, i s unacc ount ed for byt he r ecor d. T her e i s no i ndi cat i on i n t he r ecor d w hyt hi s del ayoccurr ed and f aul tw as not

### Judge Ki t c he ns wa s a ppoi nt e d t o fi l lthe va c anc y whi c h oc c urr e d upon the 3 

### r e t i r e m e nt

of Judge J ohn M. Mont gom e ry , t o whom thi s c a s e wa s fi r s t

a s s i gne d. 9 as s i gned. W hen t he r ecor d i s sil ent as t o t he r eas on fordel ay , t he cl ock runs agai ns tt he St at e; t hi s C our thas hel d t hatt he St at e bea r s t he r i s k of non- per s uas i on as t o good ca us e. N ati ons , 4 8 1 S o . 2 d a t 7 6 1 . T h e re f o re , th is 1 5 -d a yp e ri o d c o u n ts a g a in s t th e S ta te
. ¶14
. T he cl ock i s t oll e d f ro m D ecem ber 3, 20 03 un t i l F ebruary 17 , 20 04 becau se D i es’

a tto rn e yre q u e s te d a c o n tin u a n c e d u e to a c o n f lic t w ith a n o th e r t ri a l. See B aines , 604 So. 2d at264. T he nextper i od fr om Feb rua ry 17, 2004 unt i l Februar y19, 2004, w as due t o a confl i cti n s chedul i ng w i t h one of t he St at e’ s for ens i c expert s . T hi s t w o- dayper i od does not
c o u n t ag a in st th e S tate . T h is C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t th e a b se n c e o f a m a ter ial w itn e ss f

a lls

w ith in th e d e f

in itio n o f g o o d c a u s e . S h arp , 786 So. 2d at380. T her efor e, t he abs ence of t he S ta te ’s f o re n s ic e x p e rt q u a lif

ie s a s g o o d c a u s e . ¶15. T he next or der of cont i nuance s i gned and fi l ed, nunc pr o tunc, on Februar y 27, 2004 st ay ed the proceed i ng from F ebruary19 , 2 0 0 4 u n t i l M ay13 , 20 04 , becau se Judge L ee J. H ow ar d w as i nvol ved i n a bench tr i al on Februar y19, and “thi s i s a ca s e w hi ch mustbe t r i ed b yJu d g e H o w a rd , as Ju d g e Ja m e s T . K itch e n s w a s a n A ss ista n t D istric t A tto rn e yw h e n th is 3

cas e w as i ndi ct ed byt he gr and j ur y . ” A l though w e fi nd no pr ece dentdir ec tl yon poi nt

r egar di ng s uch r eas on fordel ay , t he C our tof A ppeal s deal tw i t h a si m i l ari s s ue i n A lexander

v . S ta te , 841 So. 2d 1138 ( M i s s. C t. A pp. 2002)
. I n A lexa n der th e tw o c irc u it j u d g e s in T i ppah C ount yw er e for ced t o r ecus e t hemsel ves pr i ort o t r i al , and anot her j udge had t o be

### 10

a p p o in te d to h e a r t h e c a s e . A lexander , 841 So. 2d at1145. B eca us e, t he r epl ace m entj udge had hi s ow n d o ck et a n d cas el oad fr om anot herci r cui the coul d noti m m edi at el yheart he d e f e n d a n t’ s c a s e . Id
. T he C our t of A ppeal s found t hat t he del aycaus ed bys eeki ng a new ju d g e c o u ld n o t b e a ttr ib u te d s o le ly to th e S ta te
. Id
. T he pr es ent cas e i s cl ear l yanal ogous t o t hats i tuat i on, and fi ndi ng t he C our t of A ppeal s ’ appr oach l egal l y s ound, w e her ebyadopt i t
. A t p rese n t, i ti s cl eart hatt he or i gi nal j udge’ s r et i r ement and hi s r epl ace m entbyt he

as s i s t antdi s t r i ctat t or neyw ho w as pr os ecut i ng this c ase w as no faul tof ei t hert he St at e or D i es , butr at herw as an ac tr equi r ed t o pr ot ectt he ri ght s of t he defenda nt
. T hus , w e hol d t hat t he del aynece s s i t at ed byJ udge H ow ard ’s s chedul i ng confl i cti s good caus e s how n. T he

rea so n fo r t h e n ex t con ti n u an ce , fro m M ay1 3 , 2 0 0 4 u n ti l M ay2 5 , 2 0 0 4 , en tered b ythe c o u rt “s ua spont e”a nd j oi ned by t he S t at e, i s unexpl ai ned. T her efor e, t hos e 12 day s ar e as s es s ed

a g a in s t th e S ta te
. N

ati ons , 4 8 1 S o . 2 d a t 7 6 1
. ¶ 1 6
. T h e trial c o u rt iss u e d th e n e x t c o n tin u a n c e , m o v in g th e trial f ro m M a y 2 5 , 2 0 0 4 to A ugus t17, 2004, agai n beca us e t he tr i al of anot her cas e carr i ed over i nt o t hatdat e, and t he

cou rtfou nd “t here are no ad dit i on al dates l eft du ri ng t his t erm of C ou rton w hich t his cause can be t r i ed. ” A s di s cus s ed s upr a, t hi s t i m e i s not as s es s ed agai ns t t he St at e, beca us e good

c a u s e e x is te d f

o r t h e c o n tin u a n c e . ¶ 1 7
. T h e f

in a l c o n tin u a n c e w a s o rd e re d u p o n m o tio n o f th e S tate , m o v in g th e trial d a te to A ugus t23, due t o t he unava i l abi l i t yon t he 17 of bot h agent s W es St app and Bre ntY oung, th one havi ng been s ubpoenae d t o t es t i fyi n A r kans as befor e a f eder al gr and j ur yand t he ot her

### 11

form edi cal purpos es . T hi s s even day per i od does not countagai ns tt he St at e. T hi s C our thas h e ld th a t th e a b s e n c e o f a m a te ri a l w itn e s s f a lls w ith in th e d e f

in itio n o f g o o d c a u s e . S h arp , 786 So. 2d at 380. T her efor e, t he abs ence of t he St at e’ s key l aw enfor ceme n t w i t nes s es q u a lif ie s a s g o o d c a u s e . ¶18. T he t r i al s t ar t ed on A ugus t23, 2004, t her eby endi ng t he t i m e per i od forcal cul at i on
o f t h e 2 7 0
- d a y ru l e . U p o n c a r e f u l r e v i e w o f

r e c o r d , w e c o n c l u d e t h a to f t h e 7 3 1 d a ys bet w een the dat e of D i es ’ ar r ai gnm entand t he t r i al , onl y47 m us tbe as s es s ed s ol el yt o t he S tat e. A g ree d co n ti n u an ce s ac co u n t fo r 28 1 d ay s. O f th e re m ainin g d elay s, 7 6 d ay s w ere at t r i but abl e t o D i es , and t he rem ainin g 327 day s w er e exc us ed forgood caus e s how n, pur s uantt o Sect i on 99- 17- 1. T her e i s no m er i tt o D i es ’ ar gum entt hatt he 270- dayrul e w as
v io la te d
. I I . S UP P RE S S I ON OF EV I DE NCE ¶19. D i es ar gues t hat t he evi dence obt ai ned as a r es ul tof t he t r aff i c s t op and hi s s ubs equent
ar r es ts houl d have be en s uppr es s ed. H e ar gues t hat t he t r aff i c st op w as i l l egal beca us e i tw as
n o t b a se d o n re a so n a b le s u sp icio n a n d th e re f o re , a ll e v id e n c e su b se q u e n tly o b tain e d w a s f ru it of t he poi s onous t r ee. I n t he al t er nat i ve, D i es ar gues t hathi s ar r est w as il lega l be caus e t he

a g e n ts la c k e d p ro b a b le c a u s e to in itia te a w a rr a n tle s s a rr e s t. ¶20. I n r evi ew i ng t hi s i s s ue, t hi s C our tadopt s a mi xed s t andar d of r evi ew . D et er m i nat i ons
o f re a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n a n d p ro b a b le c a u s e s h o u ld b e re v ie w e d d e n o v o . O r nelas v. U ni ted States , 5 1 7 U .S . 6 9 0 , 6 9 9 , 1 1 6 S . C t. 1 6 5 7 , 1 3 4 L . E d . 2 d 9 1 1 (1 9 9 6 ); Floyd v. Ci t y of Cr ys tal

### 12

Sp r ings , 7 4 9 S o . 2d 110, 113 ( M i s s . 1999)
. H ow ever , t hi s C our ti s r es t r i ct ed t o a de novo

r evi ew of t he t r i al j udge’ s deci sion b ased on hi s t or i cal fac t s r evi ew ed undert he s ubs t ant i al

e v id e n c e a n d c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s s ta n d a rd s . Floyd , 7 4 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 3
. ¶21. T hi s C our thas found t hat t he Four t h A m endment t o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and A r t i cl e 3 Sect i on 23 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on co n tai n al m os ti dent i cal l anguage
e x p re s s in g a n in d iv id u a l’ s ri g h t to b e f re e f ro m u n re a s o n a b le s e a rc h e s a n d s e iz u re s . Id
. at 114. T hi s pr ohi bi t i on appl i es equal l y t o s ei zur es of t he per s on and br i ef i nves t i gat or ys t ops in c lu d in g th o s e o f

a v e h ic le
. U

ni ted States v. C or tez , 449 U
. S. 411, 417, 101 S. C t
. 690, 66 L
. E d. 2d 621 ( 1981)
. T hi s C our t has opi ned t hat a pol i ce of fi cer ’ s l aw enfor cementact i vi t i es can b e divi ded i nto t hree t ypes: (1) V olunt arycon versat i on : A n off i cer m ay app roach a person fo r the p urpose of enga gi ng i n a vol unt ar y conver s at i on no m at t er w hat fac t s ar e know n t o t he offi cers i nce i ti nvol ves no for ce a nd no det ent i on of t he per s on i nt er vi ew ed; ( 2) In v e stig a tiv e sto p a n d tem p o ra ryd e ten tio n : T o sto p a n d tem p o ra rilyd e tain is not an ar r es t , and t he ca s es hol d t hatgi ven r eas onabl e ci r cumst ance s an off i cer m ay s t op and det ai n a per s on t o r es ol ve an ambi guous s i tuat i on w i t houthavi ng s uffi ci entknow l edge t o j us t if yan arr es t ; ( 3) A r r es t : A n ar r es tm aybe made o n ly w h e n th e o f

f ic e r h a s p ro b a b le c a u s e . S in g leta ry v . S ta te , 3 1 8 S o . 2 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 6 (M iss. 1 9 7 5 ). ¶2 2
. T h is C o u rth as h eld th at a p erso n m ayb e d etaine d sh o rto f a fu ll arrest fo r inv esti g atory p u rp o s e s . J

o n e s v . S ta te , 8 4 1 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 , 1 2 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e c o n stitu tio n a l re q u ire m e n ts f o r a n in v e s tig a tiv e s to p a re le s s s tr in g e n t th a n th o s e f o r a f u ll a rr e s t. Floyd , 749 So. 2d at 114. T hi s C our tal l ow s an i nves t i gat i ve s t op as l ong as an off i cerhas “r eas onabl e s us pi ci on, g ro u n d e d in sp e c if

ic a n d a rticu lab le f

a c ts, th a t a p e rso n th e y e n c o u n ter w a s in v o lv e d in o r is

### 13

w ant ed i n connec t i on w i t h a fe l ony. . . oras lon g as t he off i cer s have s om e obj ect i ve
m a n if e s ta tio n th a t th e p e rs o n s to p p e d is , o r i s a b o u t to b e e n g a g e d in c ri m in a l a c tiv ity.” I d. (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ). T h is C o u rt m u st c o n sid e r, in tak in g in to a c c o u n t th e to tality of t he ci r cumst ance s , w het hert h e offi cerhad a “ par t i cul ar i zed a nd obj ect i ve bas i s for

s us pect i ng t he par t i cul ar per s on s t opped of cr i m i nal act i vi t y . ” I d. ( ci t i ng C or tez , 449 U
. S. at 4 1 7 -18 ). ¶2 3
. In Mille r v . S ta te , 373 So. 2d 1004, 1006- 07 ( M i s s . 1979) , t hi s C our tfi r s taddr es s ed t he i s s ue of the pl ai n s m el l cor ol l ar yt o t he pl ai n vi ew doct r i ne. I n Mil ler, t hi s C our tfound th e s e n s e o f s m e ll to b e n o le s s im p o rt a n t o r t ru s tw o rt h yth a n th e s e n s e o f s ig h t. I d. at1006. I tw as i n Mil

ler t hat t hi s C our t fi r s t s t at ed t hatpr obabl e ca us e maycome fr om anyone of a n
o f f ic e r’ s f iv e s e n s e s , in c lu d in g a n o f f ic e r’ s s e n s e o f

s m e ll. I d. a t 1 0 0 7
. If a n o f

f ice r c lea rly

sm ell s co n tr ab an d , su ch as m arij u an a, tha t sm ell ca n g ive rise to the p rob ab le ca u se n ec essa ry to s e a rc h a v e h ic le a n d its p a s s e n g e rs . B o c h e s v . S ta te , 5 0 6 S o . 2 d 2 5 4 , 2 6 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). B eca us e s m el l al one can gi ve r i s e t o a s ear ch of t he pas s enger s and compar t m ent of a s t opped vehi cl e, i tal s o can gi ve r i s e t o t he l ow ers t andar d forr eas onabl e s us pi ci on and s uppor tan offi cer ’ s des i r e t o fur t herhi s i nves t i gat i on of t he r ece ntpas s enger s of a ve hi cl e. ¶24. T he r ecor d cl ear l y r efl ect s t hat t he agent s i dent i fi ed t he s m el l of bur nt m ar i j uana, and t hei rexper i ence w i t h t he M i s s i s s i ppi B ur eau of N arc ot i cs expos ed t hem t o t hats m el l on
m ul t i pl e occ as i ons . T heyw er e abl e t o t r ace t he s m el l back t o t he r ed ca m ar o t hr ough an open

w i ndow
. T heycame t o t hi s know l edge w hi l e re m ai ni ng out s i de of the vehi cl e i n s pace t hat

### 14

w as open t o t he publ i c. T he age nt s i n no w ayent er ed i nt o a sp ac e i n w hi ch D i es had a

r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy . T he s m el l of burntm ar i j uana c om i ng fr om an i dent i fi ed l ocat i on, s uch as a ca r , cr eat es enough ar t i cul abl e fac tt o gi ve r i s e t o a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hatcr i m i nal act i vi t yhad bee n comm i t t ed and t hat fur t her i nves t i gat i on i s w arr ant ed. Pol i ce
o f f ic e r s h a v e a d u tyn o t o n lyto se a rc h o u t th o se w h o c o m m it rep o rte d c rim e s b u t als o to in v e s tig a te u n re p o rt e d a c tiv ity w h e n e v e r c ir c u m s ta n c e s in d ic a te th a t th e ys h o u ld
. Floyd , 749 S o. 2d at117 ( ci t i ng U n i ted S tates v. W

est , 4 6 0 F. 2 d 3 7 4 , 3 7 5
- 7 6 ( 5 t h Ci r . 1972) )
. T he F o u rth A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t r e q u ire p o lice w h o lac k th e in f o rm a tio n n e c e ss a ryf

o r p ro b a b le

ca u se to sim p lysh rug their sho u lders an d all o w a crim e o r a crim inal esc ap e to o cc u r. R athe r, i t al l ow s fo r i nv est i gator y st op s to e nco urage t he p oli ce t o p ursue t heirreas on able s uspici on s. S in gletary , 3 1 8 S o . 2 d a t 8 7 7
. ¶25
. T he agents t oo k appropri at e act i on s given the cir cum st ances. D i es ar gu es t hat becau se t he age nt s w er e unabl e t o i dent i fyt he i ndi vi dual s w ho w er e in the car w hen theyar r i ved at t he baras t he same ones w ho l at erw er e pul l ed overbyO ffi cerB ear d, t hei rt r aff i c s t op w as i l l egal
. T hat a sserti on i s i ncor r ect
. T he tw o event s ar e nott oo r emot e i n t i m e t o dul l t he

r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hatw as pr es ent
. W hen t he age nt s arr i ved at the b ar, t heyw i t nes s ed t hr ee pe opl e s i t t i ng i n t he r ed ca m ar o. S h o rt ly af tert hei rarr i val t hos e i ndi vi dual s l eftand

w enti ns i de t he bar
. A s hor tt i m e af t ert hat , t he age nt s per cei ved t he s m el l of bur ntm ar i j uana and t r ace d i t t o i t s s our ce, t her eby t y i ng t hei r r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o t he vehi cl e and i t s r ece nt
o c c u p a n ts
.

### 15

¶26
. T he agents rem ai ned i n s urvei l l an c e o f th e re d c a m a ro f

o r f o rty -f ive m i nu t es. A d m it ted ly, th eyco u ld n o t see if a n y o n e e lse ca m e o r w en t from the v eh icl e b u t th eyw ere
aw ar e t hat i t di d not l eave t he par ki ng l ot dur i ng t hatt i m e. I ti s r eas onabl e t o bel i eve thatt he in d iv id u a ls w h o w e re in th e v e h icle w h e n th e a g e n ts arriv e d w e re th e sa m e o n e s w h o w o u ld l eave for t y - fi ve m i nut es l at er i n t hat s ame ve hi cl e. T he t i m e per i od her e i s not l ong enough to n e g a te th e a g e n ts ’ r e a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n . ¶27. D i es ar gues t hat t he s ubs equent t r aff i c s t op w as i l l egal and poi nt s t o W hre n v. U

ni ted States , 517 U
. S. 806, 116 S. C t
. 1 7 6 9 , 135 L
. E d. 2d. 89 ( 1996) and U ni ted States v. E sc a la n te , 2 3 9 F .3 d 6 7 8 , 6 8 0 -8 1 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) f o r su p p o rt. D ies a rg u e s th a t B e a rd ’s tra f f ic sto p w a s p re tex tu a l, bu t th e n c laim s th a t B e a rd lac k e d th e p re tex t to sto p h im . H o w e v e r, b o th W h r e n and E s calante ar e fa ctual l ydi s t i ngui s habl e fr om t hi s cas e. I n bot h t hos e ca s es , t he offi cerhad a hunc h t hats om e t y p e o f crim inal act i vi t yw as occurr i ng butw as notaw ar e of

w h a t th a t ac ti v it y w a s ; th e re f o re , h e u se d th e p re tex t o f a tra f f ic s to p f o r a v a lid tra f

f ic vi ol at i on t o fur t herhi s i nves t i gat ion
. In the p r es entcas e t hatw as nott he i nt ent i on ort he p u rp o se o f

th e tra f f ic s to p . In th e p re se n t ca se th e tr a f f ic s to p w a s b a se d o n th e re a so n a b le suspi ci on t hat i l l egal narcot i cs w ere b e in g u se d . T h a t w a s th e c rim e th e a g e n ts s o u g h t to i nves t i gat e. T heydi d notneed t o per for m a pr et extual s t op. T her efor e, w e fi nd t he age nt s had th e ri g h t to s to p D ie s . ¶28. T he agent s di d not us e t he t r aff i c s t op t o s ear ch for evi dence of w r ong doi ng but r at her t o co nfir m t heirreas on able s uspici on t hat al readyexis t ed. T heycho se a t raffi c st op becau se

### 16

of t he exi genci es of t he ci r cumst ance s . T hey knew t he bar w as goi ng t o cl os e and t hats oon th e p ark ing lot w o u ld be fil led w ith p atron s, so m e un d er th e i n flu en ce o f alc o h o l. A confr ont at i on i n t he parki ng l otw oul d have i ncr eas ed the r i s k t o t hei rper s on bey ond w hatw as
e x p e c t e d d u r i n g a t r a f

f i c s t o p . Al s o , i f t h e o c c u p a n t s r e c o g n i z e d t h e a g e n t s wa i t i n g f o rt h e m, they m igh t no t hav e re turn ed to the red ca m aro . T h ere fo re, this i s ac ce p table p o li ce b eh av ior. ¶29. D i es al s o ar gues t hatanyr eas onabl e s us pi ci on t he age nt s m ayhave pos s es s ed w as not t r a n s f e r r e d t o B e a r d w h o p e r f o r m e d t h e t r a f

f i c s t o p ; t h e r e f

o r e , B e a r d ’ s s t o p w a s i l l e g a l
. We d o n o t ag re e w ith th is a rg u m e n t. T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t re a so n a b le su sp icio n a n d p ro b a b le

c a u se c a n b e tra n sf

e rre d f ro m o f f ice r to o f f ice r a n d p o lice d e p a rtm e n t to p o lice d e p a rtm e n t. Jones , 841 So. 2d at126. T hi s C our tcl ear l yl ai d outt he hi s t or yof t hi s i n Jones : T he r eas onabl e bel i ef of W C SO of Jones ' s i nvol vement i n t he murde rcoul d be tr a n s f e rr e d to M e m p h is p o lic e . I n W ill ia m s v . L e e C o u n ty S h e riff's D e pa r t m e nt , 744 So. 2d 286 ( M i s s . 1999) , th is C o u rt h e ld th a t o f f ic e r s in M iss iss ip p i w e re e n tit led to re ly o n in f o rm a tio n th e yre c e iv e d f ro m C a lifo rn ia l aw enfor cementau tho ri t i es w ho i nfor m ed t hem t hata murde rhad bee n c o m m itt e d in C a lifo rn ia a n d th a t a p e rso n w ith th e d e f e n d a n t' s s o c ial s e c u rity n u m b e r a n d p h y s ic a l c h a ra c te ri s tic s h a d c o m m itte d it. See a l so H am burg v. S ta te , 248 So. 2d 430, 432 ( M i s s . 1971) ( i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded t o arrest i ng offi cerbyl aw enfor cement s our ce pr ovi ded s uffi ci ent pr obabl e caus e t o m ake a n a rre st) ; P a rk s v . S ta te , 1 8 0 M iss. 7 6 3 , 1 7 8 S o . 4 7 3 (19 3 8 ) (w h ere i nfor m at i on of a cr i m e pr ovi ded bys her i ff of one countyt o s her i ff of anot her count yhel d s uffi ci entpr obabl e ca us e t o j us t i fyw arr ant l es s arr est byt he for m er )
. A n offi cer ' s r el i ance on comput er r epor t s , r adi o comm uni cat i ons , and di s pat cheri nfor m at i on have be en hel d t o confe rs uffi ci entpr obabl e ca us e for a rr e s t. See Mitch e ll v. S ta te , 7 9 2 S o .2 d 1 9 2 (M is s . 2 0 0 1 ) (ra d io c o m m u n ica tio n ); J

o n e s v . S ta te , 481 So. 2d 798 ( M i s s . 1985) ( r adi o) ; Hodge v . S ta te , 8 0 1 S o .2 d 7 6 2 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) (c o m p u ter re p o rt); J o n e s v . S ta te , 799 So. 2d 171 ( M i s s . C t
. A pp. 2001) ( di s pat cher )
. M or eover , i ti s s et t l ed l aw in M iss iss ip p i th a t a n in f o rm a n t m a y p ro v id e o f

f ice rs w ith su f

f icie n t p ro b a b le c a u s e to m a k e a w a rr a n tle s s a rr e s t. See A b ra m v . S ta te , 60 6 S o. 2d 10 15 (M i ss.

### 17

1 9 9 2 ); Mo o re v . S ta te , 4 9 3 S o .2 d 1 2 9 5 (M is s . 1 9 8 6 ), J o n e s v . S ta te , 358 So. 2d 414 ( M i s s . 1978)
. T her e i s no r eas on w hy i nfor m at i on r ece i ved fr o m an o the r l aw enfor cementoffi cial , w ho has a s w or n dut yt o uphol d t he l aw , s houl d be a n y l e s s r e l i a b l e t h a n i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d f

r o m a n i n f

o r m a n tw h o 's c r e d i b i l i t y, i n m anys i tuat i ons , i s uncer t ai n. Jones , 8 4 1 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 6 -2 7
. ¶ 30. Cl e a r l ys u s p i c i o n a n d p r o b a b l e c a u s e c a n b e t r a n s f e r r e d a mon g l a w en f

o r cement per s onnel
. W hen t he age nt s des cr i bed t he i nfor m at i on t h ey h ad obt ai ned t o B ear d and

r eques t ed hi s hel p w i t h a t r aff i c s t op, t hei r r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t r ans ferr ed t o hi m . T her efor e, wh e n Be a r d a c t e d , h e d i d s o wi t h t h e r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t h a tt h e a g e n t s h a d g i v e n t o h i m. ¶ 3 1
. D ie s a ls o a rg u e s h is a rr e s t w a s ill e g a l b e c a u s e th e a g e n ts la c k e d p ro b a b le c a u s e . D ies a rg u e s th a t if th e a g e n ts la c k e d p r o b a b le c a u se to a rre st h im a t th e tim e o f th e tra f f ic

s t op, he coul d nothave be en l at erar r es t ed forr es i s t i ng ar r es t
. T hi s C our thel d t hati f a

su sp ec t fl ee s fro m the p o li ce w h en h e ha s b ee n d etaine d o n rea so n ab le su sp ici o n , the o ff icers

a c q u ir e p ro b a b le c a u s e to e f f e c tu a te a n a rr e s t. Mitch e ll v. S ta te , 79 2 So
. 2d 19 2, 20 4 (M i ss. 2001) ( ci t i ng S ibron v. N ew Y ork , 3 9 2 U
. S. 40, 66- 67, 88 S. C t
. 1889, 20 L
. E d. 2d 917 (19 6 8 ))
. T h e agent s pos s es s ed r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hatD i es w as engage d i n cr i m i nal act i vi t y . H i s fl i ghtfr om B ear d cr eat ed t he pr obabl e ca us e forw hi ch he w as l aw ful l yarr es t ed. ¶32
. T h is C o u rt f

in d s tha t bo t h the sei zure and arr est of D i es w e re leg a l. T h e a g e n ts pos s es s ed re as onabl e sus pi ci on t hat D i es w as engage d i n cr i m i nal act i vi t y . T heyt r ans ferr ed t hi s r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o B ear d w ho s ough t to aid by per for m i ng a t r aff i c s t op fort he purpos es of fur t her i ng t he i nves t i gat i on. W hen D i es fl ed fr om t he t r aff i c s t op t he age nt s had

### 18

t he pr obabl e ca us e nec es s ar y t o ar r es t hi m . T her efor e, t he evi dence s ubs equent l yfound on hi s per s on w as admi s s i bl e aga i ns tD i es and w as notfrui tof t he poi s onous t r ee. CO NC L US I ON ¶33. T he t r i al cour tcor r ect l ydeni ed D i es ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s beca us e t her e w as no vi ol at i on
o f t h e s t a tu t o r y2 7 0
- d a yru l e . F u r t h e r , Di e s ’ s e i z u r e a n d a r r e s twe r e l e g a l
. T h e r e f o r e we
a f f ir m D ie s ’ c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . ¶ 3 4
. CO NVI CTI ON OF POS S ES S I ON OF CO CAI NE I N AN AM OU NT GR EATER T H A N . 1 G R A M B U T L E SS T H A N 2 G R A M S A N D S E N T E N C E O F E I G H T ( 8) YE AR S, AS A N H AB I TU AL O FFEN DE R, I N T H E C USTO DY OF TH E M I SS I SS I PPI D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S, A N D P A Y M E N T O F A F I N E O F $50, 000. 00, AF F I RME D . S A I D S E NT E NC E S HA L L NO T B E RE DU CE D O R S US P E ND E D, NO R S HALL S AI D AP P EL LA NT BE EL I GI BL E F OR P AROL E OR P ROBA TI ON. S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., E A S L E Y , C A R L S O N A N D D I C K I N S O N , J J ., CO NCU R. GR AVES, J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . DI AZ AN D R AN DO L P H, J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .