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 9 - KA- 0 1 8 6 1 - S CT RICHA RD L EON L ONG
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 02/ 2009 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . R O B E R T P . C H A M B E R L IN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: DES OTO COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: O FF I CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS B Y : G EO RG E T. H O LM ES LESLI E S. LEE AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L B Y : W . G LEN N W A TTS DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: J OHN W
. CH AM P I ON 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 - 01/ 20/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E G R A V E S, P . J. , R A N D O L P H A N D P I E R C E , JJ. GR AVES, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . O n M a y 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 , R ich a rd L o n g w a s in d icte d fo r s e lli n g a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e w ith in 1, 000 f eetof a publ i c park. A f

t era one- day t r i al , L ong w as found gui l ty and se nt ence d as an habi tual of

f endert o l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i thoutthe pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e. O n appea l , L ong raised sev era l i ssu es. H o w ev er, be ca u se th e issu es lac k m erit , this C o u rtaffirm s L o n g ’s convi ct i on and s ent ence . F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S B E L OW

### 2

¶2. O n O ct ober28, 2009, L ong w as t r i ed f ort he sa l e of

a cont r ol l ed s ubs t ance , di aze pam ( V al i um ) , w i thi n 1, 000 f eet o f a publ i c park. A ttr i al , A gentJ erry R odger s of the O l i ve B r anch N ar cot i cs D i vi s i on t es t i f i ed thathe w as act i ng i n a n unde r coverc apac i ty w hen he met L on g. A tthis i nit i al m eet i ng , R od gers arr ang ed t o pu rchase V al i um f rom L on g. R od gers al so su p p lied L o n g w ith h is p h o n e n u m b e r so th a t L o n g c o u ld c o n tac t h im w h e n th e V a liu m p ill s
w er e ava i l abl e. A f

t erm eet i ng w i th L ong, R odger s conduct ed an i ni t i al invest i gat i on and di s cover ed thatL ong l i ved appr oxi m at el y 100 f eetfr om a fe nce thats epar at ed the O l i ve B ra n c h C ity P a rk a n d th e tr a ile r p a rk w h e re th e p u rc h a s e w o u ld ta k e p la c e . ¶3. O n J anuary 22, 2009, L ong cal l ed R odger s t o not i f y hi m that he had the pi l l s and w as re a d y to se ll th e m a s s o o n a s th e fu n d s w e re a v a ilab le to R o d g e rs. R o d g e rs th e n n o tified h is
nar cot i cs t eam t hati tw as t i m e t o s etup the contr ol l ed buy. T he narcot i cs t eam w i r ed R odger s f

oraudi o and vi deo, w hi ch began r ecor di ng once R odger s l ef tt o m eetL ong. O nce R odger s w as i n r out e t o t he buy l ocat i on, he r ece i ved a phone cal l f r om L ong conf

i r m i ng t he tim e a n d p la c e th e y w e re to m e e t. ¶4. A s R odger s pul l ed i nt o t he t r ai l erpar k, he not i ced Long out s i de hi s tr ai l er , f l as hi ng h is v e h icle ’s lig h ts. R o d g e rs p a rk e d n e x t to L o n g ’s v e h ic le. H e th e n ste p p e d o u t o f h is vehi cl e t o carr y outthe tr ans act i on. R odger s and Long had engage d i n a shortconver s at i on
w hen Long produc ed a s m al l s ack of pi l l s . R odger s then count ed out$100 and the exc hange
w a s m a d e . A fte r th e ex c h a n g e , L o n g to ld R o d g e rs th a t h e w o u ld b e g e tti n g so m e m o re p ill sRo dg ers an d th e n arc oti cs t eam did no t ar res t L on g im

m ediately. Inst ead , Rodge rs 1 conducted a more extensive investigation because he wanted to find out who was supplying Long. Af ter a month o f inv estigatin g, Rodge rs co nc luded th at Lo ngw as o rderin g th e p ill s throughthem ail , so he decided i t was time to arrestLong. 

### 3 i n and t ol d R odger s t o gi ve hi m a cal l
. A f t ert he tr ans act i on w as compl et e, R odger s gotback into h is ve h icl e a n d d rov e o ff. 1 ¶5 . Rodge r s a nd the n a r c ot i c s t e a m t he n meta tthe Ol i ve B r anch N ar cot i cs D i vi s i on,
w her e the bag of

pi l l s w as keptunt i l i tw as del i ver ed t o t he M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e Labor at or y by O f f i cerC l i f f R obert s of

the O l i ve B r anch Pol i ce D epart m ent . O nce a tthe l ab, E r i k Fr azur e, a f or ens i c che m i s ts peci al i zi ng i n drug anal ys i s , t es t ed the pi l l s R odger s had b oughtf r om L ong. Fr azur e conc l uded t hatt he pi l l s w er e, i n f act , di aze pam, w hi ch i s s ol d underthe tr ade name, V al i um , a s chedul e I V contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . ¶6. A ttri al , the p rosecut i on res t ed it s case- i n-chi ef af t er F razur e’s t est i m on y. T he defense th e n m o v e d th e trial c o u rt fo r a d ire c ted v e rd ict, a lleg in g tha t th e p ro se c u tio n h a d fa iled to p rov e a p ri m a fa cie c ase that L o n g h ad so ld a c o n tr o ll ed su b sta n c e w ith in 1 , 0 0 0 fee t of a publ i c park. The tr i al c our ts ubs equent l y de ni ed L ong’ s mot i on, f i ndi ng thatthe pr os ecut i on h a d m e t th e req u ire m e n ts fo r th e m a tter to g o to th e ju ry . F o llo w in g th e trial c o u rt’s d e n ial, the def ens e r es t ed i t s cas e- i n- chi ef w i thoutpre s ent i ng any evi dence
. C ouns el f orboth s i des then gave cl os i ng ar gum ent s . Subse quent l y, t he j ury found Long gui l ty of s el l i ng a contr ol l ed
s ubs t ance w i thi n 1, 000 f eetof a publ i c park. T he tr i al courtthen exc us ed the j ury bef or e the
s e n te n c in g p h a s e o f t h e tr ia l. ¶7 . A ts ent enci ng, the p r os e c ut i on p r e s e nt e d a r gu mental l egi ng t hatL ong had been i n d i c t e d a s a n h a b i tu a l o f f e n d e ru n d e rM i s s i s s i p p i Co d e S e c t i o n 9 9
- 1 9
- 8 3 , c i t i n g L o n g ’ s t wo

### 4

p ri o r f e lo n ie s : (1 ) s e x u a l a s s a u lt o n a c h ild , a n d (2 ) a g g ra v a te d in c e s t w ith h is o w n c h ild
. See M i ss. C od e A nn . § 9 9-19-83 (R ev. 20 07 ). R egardi ng the co nv i ct i on foragg ravat ed incest
w ith h is ow n ch il d , L o n g co n test ed an d arg u ed , “I d o n o t hav e a d au g h ter. I ha v e a 2 3 -ye arol d son. I w as 25 year s ol d att he t i m e. T he gi r l w as 17. I di dn’ tknow i t . ” A ccor di ng t o L ong, the gi r l w as nothi s daught eratthe t i m e of t he of f ens e, she w as the daught erof a w om an that h e m a rrie d th re e y e a rs la ter . H o w e v e r, th e trial ju d g e fo u n d th a t th e c e rt if ie d d o c u m e n ts fro m C o lo ra d o : cl ear l y conf

i r m thatM r . L ong has been c onvi ct ed on tw o s epar at e occ as i ons ar i s i ng outof tw o sepa r at e i ndi ctm ent s forfe l ony cr i m es , and on ea ch cr i m e, he w as s ent ence d t o i n exce s s of one yea ri n the s t at e peni t ent i ary.

. . . . I w i l l not e t hatcer t ai nl y [ the court ] w i l l agr ee w i th M r . M urphy’ s [ , couns el f or t he St a t e o f

M i s s i s s i pp i , ] c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on o f the c a s e l a w i n tha ta tl e as tone o f th o se c rim e s c o n stitu te a c rim e o f v io len c e , the re fo re , m a n d a tin g th a t th is c o u rt se n ten c e M r. L o n g to a ter m o f life im p riso n m e n t w ith o u t th e p o ss ib ili ty o f p a ro le
. T he t r i al cour t , outof pr eca ut i on, proc eede d by per f or m i ng a pr opor t i onal i ty anal ys i s . T he tr i al courts t at ed: I do f i nd thatthi s s ent ence i s notdi s pr opor t i onat e t o the cr i m es comm i t t ed by a p e rso n in M r. L o n g ’s p o sitio n . F irst an d fo re m o st, he h a s c o m m itt e d a sa le o f a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e , V a liu m , D ia z e p a m . H e ’s b e e n c o n v ic te d
. . . . C e rta in ly , tha t is in a n d o f its e lf a n e g re g io u s c rim e . . . . T o c o m p o u n d th a t, thi s w as done w i thi n . . . w el l w i thi n t he di s t ance of a park, w hi ch l eads t o the appl i cabl e enha ncement , i f thi s w er e notan ( Sect i on 99- 19- ] 83 cas e, w hi ch w o u ld d o u b le th e m a x im u m s e n te n c e .

. . . . I wi l l n o t e . . . th a th e wa s l o o k i n g a ta p o s s i b l e 4 0
- y e a rs e n t e n c e f o rth e c r i me th a t h e w a s c o n v ic te d o f t o d a y , th a t h e h a s t w o p r io r h e in o u s c o n v ic tio n s , a pendi ng i ndi ctm enton a vi ol entcr i m e . . . Forthos e and otherreas on s,

### 5

c e rta in ly n o t li m ited to th o se re a so n s, I fin d th a t th e p u n ish m e n t m a n d a ted in Sect i on 99- 19- 83 i s notdi s pr op ort i on a t e t o the s ent ence d i m pos ed ther eon, and ther ef or e, M r . L ong’ s s ent ence w i l l be a t erm of l i f e i m pri sonmenti n the M i s s i s s i pp i D e pa r t mentof Cor r e c t i on s t o b e s e r ve d a s a Se c t i on 99
- 19- 83 h ab itu al offen d er. ¶8 . O n N ovember 3, 2009, L on g f i l e d h i s mot i on f

orj ud gmen tno t w i t hs t andi ng t he
ver di ctorf

ora new tr i al
. O n D ece m ber9, 2009, the t ri al courtdeni ed Long’s m ot i on. T h e re a ft e r, L o n g tim e ly fi le d h is a p p e a l. DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 9 . L o n g ra ise s fiv e iss u e s o n a p p e a l: ( 1) W hetherthe ver di cti s agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence ; (2 ) W h e th e r in fla m m a to ry c lo sin g a rg u m e n t b y th e S tate re q u ire s a n e w trial; ( 3) W hetherthe St at e pr es ent ed compet entpr oof of the al l eged s al e w i thi n 1, 000 f eet of a publ i c park; ( 4) W hethert he t r i al courts houl d have de vel oped more pr oof r egar di ng L ong’ s pr i or convi ct i ons ats ent enci ng; and (5 ) W h e th e r L o n g ’s s e n ten c e is illeg a l o r o th e rw ise u n c o n stitu tio n a lly di s pr opor t i onat e. ¶10. B as ed on the r ecor d bef or e thi s C our t , w e af

f i r m L ong’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . I
. W hetherthe ve r di ct

w as agai ns tthe ove r w helm i ng w ei ghtof the ev i dence
. ¶1 1. I n det er m i ni ng whethe ra j ury ve r di c ti s a ga i ns tthe o ve rw he l mi ng w ei ghtof t he evi de nc e , “ thi s Cour tw i l l on l y o ve r turn a j ury v e r di c tw he n i ti s s o c on tr a ry t o t he
overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence thatt o al l ow i tt o s t and w oul d s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” B o y d v. S ta te , 977 So. 2d 329, 336 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng T ag ga rt
v. S ta te , 957 So. 2d 981, 987 ( M i s s . 2007) )
. W hen maki ng thi s det erm i nat i on, “the evi denceWhile the vi deo does not show money being exchanged for the pi lls, the audio port ion of 2 the video re veals the s ound of money being counted and pills r attli ng. 

### 6 s houl d be w ei ghed i n the l i ghtmostf avor abl e t o the ver di ct . ” B u sh v. S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 844 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng He rr in gv. S ta te , 691 So. 2d 948, 957 ( M i s s . 1997) )
. I f , i n vi ew i ng th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e v e rd ict, a llo w in g th e v e rd ict to sta n d w o u ld
c o n s titu te a n u n c o n s c io n a b le in ju s tic e , th e p ro p e r r e m e d y is to g ra n t a n e w tr ia l. B u sh , 895 So. 2d at844- 845. ¶1 2 . V iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f av o rab le t o the S tat e a n d res o lv in g a ll
r eas onabl e i nf

erences i n fa vorof

the St at e, thi s C our tf

i nds thatthe j ury ver di ctw as not agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
. T he s ur ve i l l a nc e vi deo makes cl earthe f act tha tLon g s ol d V a l i um t o Rodge r s o n J a nu a ry 22 , 2 00 9, a tthe l oc a t i on a l l e ge d i n t he in d ic tm e n t. ¶13. L ong ar gued t hatt he survei l l ance vi deo w as unre l i abl e beca us e i tdi d notshow any d ru g s o r m o n e y b e in g e x c h a n g e d a n d th e alle g e d se ller w a s sh o w n o n ly fo r a b rie f m o m e n t. A lth o u g h th e m a n s e lli n g th e V a liu m w a s s h o w n o n th e v id e o fo r o n ly a b rie f m o m e n t, R odger s t es t i f

i ed thatt he man on the vi deo w as Long. Fur therm or e, w hi l e no money ordrugs ar e s een on t he vi deo, R odger s t es t i f i ed t hathe count ed out$100 and exc hanged the money fo r th e p ill s. T h e p ill s w e re th e n d e liv e re d to th e M iss iss ip p i C rim e L a b o ra to ry , w h e re E rik

2 F ra z u re d e te rm in e d th a t th e p ills w e re , in fa c t, V a liu m , a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . ¶14. A l though the s ur vei l l ance vi deo f ai l s t o s how any m oney or drugs bei ng excha nged, R odger s t es t i f

i ed thatL ong s ol d V al i um t o hi m f or$100. T her ef

or e, thi s Courtf

i nds thatt he
ver di cti s notagai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
. A ccor di ngl y, w e af f i r m the

### 7

tr i al court ’ s deni al of

L ong’ s m ot i on f

orj udgm entnot w i ths t andi ng t he ver di ctand fora new tr ia l. II. W h e th e r in fla m m a to ry c lo sin ga rg u m e n t b y th e S ta te r e q u ire s a n e w tria l. ¶15. L ong compl ai ns thatthe pr os ecut or ’ s cl os i ng r emar ks equat ed t o a “s end- a- m es s age”
a rg u m e n t, w h ic h th is C o u rt c o n s is te n tly h a s h e ld to b e im p ro p e r. B ro w n v. S ta te , 986 So. 2d 27 0 (M i ss. 20 08 ). T he langu age spe ci fi cal l y co m plai ned of r eads as fol l ow s: Y ou know , i t s nota murde rc as e, butthe s al e of drugs , the i l l egal s al e of drugs i s i m po rt ant, l adies and gen t l em en. It ’s i m po rt ant t o co ntr ol i t , and yo u do so by s t oppi ng thos e thatge tc aughts el l i ng drugs i l l egal l y, w hi ch i s exac t l y w hat this m an d id. T h e d efe n d an t sold d rug s il lega ll y a n d – a n d h e’s g u il ty, an d it ’s t i m e forhim t o b e held accou ntabl e. H e’s s el l i ng drugs near a park as you pass th ro u g h o n y o u r w a y to I d o n ’t k n o w w h e re . . . . I’m ju st g lad w e c a u g h t h im w h e n w e d id
. ¶16. “D epending u po n the f act s and cir cum st ances o f each case, ‘s end -a- m ess age’
ar gum ent s m ay – s t andi ng al one – cons t i tut e r ever s i bl e err or . ” Br o wn , 98 6 S o . 2 d at 27 5 . In det erm i ni ng w hetherthe ar gum entcompl ai ned of cons t i tut ed an i m pr oper“s end- a- m es s age”
ar gum ent , t hi s C our tw i l l appl y t he t w o- pr ong t es tsetforth i n S p ice r v . S ta te , 921 So. 2d 292 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ). H o w e v e r, th e C o u rt m u st firs t de ter m in e w h e th e r d e fe n se c o u n se l o b jec ted to th e s ta te m e n t. I

d. a t 3 1 7 . (

Spi cerfu rth e r p ro v id e d th a t, d e sp ite th e a b se n c e o f o b jec tio n , this C ou rtw i l l no tproced ural l y b ar the is sue w here “the send -a- m essage argum ent w as so ‘i n fl am m atory ’ th at th e tri al j u d g e sh o u ld h av e o b jected o n h is ow n m o ti o n . ) I d. N e x t, th is C our tm us tdet erm i ne w hether , i n l i ghtof t he surr oundi ng ci r cumst ance s , def ens e couns el in v ite d th e s ta te m e n t. I

d. a t 3 1 8 . ¶ 1 7 . If th e a p p e lla n t c a n p a s s th e s e th re s h o ld in q u ir e s , Spi cer st at es that this “C ou rtm ust det erm i ne ( 1) w hetherthe r emar ks w er e i m pr oper , and ( 2) i f s o, w hetherthe r emar ks

### 8

pr ej udi ci al l y af

f ect ed the ac cus ed’ s r i ght s . ” I d. T o cl ar i f

y the Spi certe s t, Br o wn pr ovi ded, “t o m eetthe s econd pr ong of the t es t , w e hol d thati tm us tbe c l earbeyond a r eas onabl e doubt that , abs entthe pr os ecut or ’ s i nappr opr i at e co m m ents , the j ury w o u ld have f ound t he def endantgui l ty. ” Br o wn , 9 8 6 S o . 2 d a t 2 7 6 (e m p h a s is o ri g in a l)
. ¶18. T o expl ai n t he pr obl em w i th “s end- a- m es s age” ar gum ent s , thi s C our ts t at ed: T he j ur or s ar e r epr es ent at i ves of the comm uni ty i n one s ens e, butt hey ar e not t o vot e i n a r epr es ent at i ve capaci ty. E ach j ur or i s t o appl y the l aw t o the evi dence and vot e ac cor di ngl y. T he i s s ue w hi ch eac h j ur ormustr es ol ve i s not w hetherornothe ors he w i s hes t o “s end a m es s age” butw hetherornothe or sh e b eli ev es the d efe n d an t t o b e g u il ty o f th e c ri m e c h arg ed
. T h e jury is an arm of the St at e buti ti s notan arm of the pr os ecut i on. T he St at e i ncl udes bot h the pr os ecut i on and the ac cus ed. T he f unct i on of

the j ury i s t o w ei gh the evi dence and det erm i ne the f

act s . W hen the pr os ecut i on w i s hes t o s end a mes s age they shou l d em ploy W est ern U nion. M i ssi ssi pp i j urors are notm essenger boy s. W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 5 2 2 S o . 2 d 2 0 1 , 2 0 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). ¶19. T hi s C our tf

i nds thatLong ca nnotpa s s the thr es hol d i nqui r i es s etf or th i n Spi cer , and ther ef or e, L ong’ s as s i gnm entof err ori s w i thoutm er i t . A dm i t t edl y, L ong f ai l ed t o obj ect dur i ng the St at e’ s cl os i ng a r gum ent . A l s o, the s t at ementw as nots o “ i nf l amm at ory thatt he tr i al j udge shoul d have obj ect ed on hi s ow n m ot i on. ” Spi cer , 912 So. 2d at317. I n thi s cas e, the s tat em en t com p lai n ed o f do es n o t r ise t o the lev el of tho se statem en ts w h ich th is C o u rt h a s fo u n d to b e im p ro p e r. See, e. g. , P a y to n v. S ta te , 7 8 5 S o . 2 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ); Evans
v. S ta te , 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 6 1 3 , 6 7 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); Ch a se v. S ta te , 6 9 9 S o . 2 d 5 2 1 , 5 3 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ); W ilch e r v . S ta te , 6 9 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 3 , 1 1 3 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); Hu n terv. S ta te , 684 So. 2d 625, 637 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 5 2 2 S o . 2 d 2 0 1 , 2 0 9 (M is s . 1 9 8 8 ). ¶20. I n thi s c as e, the St at e’ s r emar ks w er e s i m pl y r ei t er at i ng the j ury’ s duty s etf or th i n the j ury i ns truct i ons . T he mem ber s of the j ury w er e char ged w i th t he duty t o m ake a f i ndi ng ofWhil e th is i ssu e p ert ain s o nly to whe ther or

no t th e sentenc e enhanc em ent un de r 3 Mis sis sippi C od e S ection 41 -29 -14 2 a

pp lie s, it s ho uld

beno ted that this is su e is co ns idered an essentia l element that must be submitted to the j uryandproven beyond a rea sonable doubt. Se e Mis s. C od e Ann . § 41 -29 -14 2 (Rev . 2 00 9); Brown v . S tat e , 995 So. 2d 698 (Mi ss. 2008) (dis cussing Ap pren di v . N ew Jerse y , 5 30 U. S. 46 6, 12 0 S . C t. 2 34 8, 14 7 L . E d. 2d 43 5 (2 00 0))
. 

### 9 g u iltb a se d o n th e tes tim o n y a n d e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial. B y sta tin g th a t th e ill e g a l sa le of drug s mus tb e c on tr ol l e d, “ w hi c h i s e xa c t l y w ha t[ Long ] d i d, ” the St a t e was s ugges t i ng thatt he j ury fi nd L ong gui l ty i f they bel i eved thatthe evi dence and t es t i m ony had pr oved that L ong s ol d drugs i l l egal l y. Ther ef or e, the St at e’ s c l os i ng r emar ks , t aken i n cont ext , w er e not “s o ‘ i nf l amm at ory’ t hatt he t r i al j udge shoul d have obj ect ed on hi s ow n m ot i on. ” Spi cer , 921 So. 2d at317 (quot i ng P ayton , 785 So. 2d at270)
. A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd L ong’ s as s i gnm ent
o f e rr o r t o b e w ith o u t m e ri t. III. W h e th e r th e S ta te p re se n te dc o m p e ten t p ro o

f o f th e a lleg e d

sa le w ith in 1 ,0 0 0 fee t o f a publ i c park. 3 ¶21. H er e, L ong cl ai m s t hatt he St at e di d notpre s entsuf f i ci entevi dence t hat t he al l eged
s al e occ urr ed w i thi n 1, 000 f eetof a publ i c park. H ow ever , L ong’ s cl ai m i s a ctual l y tw o- f ol d. A lth o u g h L o n g c o n ten d s th a t th e S tate fa iled to p re s e n t co m p e ten t ev id e n c e th a t th e sa le
occurr ed w i thi n 1, 000 f eetof a publ i c park, the bas i s of thatcl ai m i s thatthe t es t i m ony pr ovi ded by the St at e’ s st ar w i t ness w as i ns uf f i ci entbeca us e he di d nothave pe r s onal know l edge thatt he sa l e occurr ed w i thi n 1, 000 fe etof a publ i c park. T hus , L ong cl ai m s that R o d g e rs “ c a n n o t tes tify to a m a tter u n les s e v id e n c e is in tro d u c e d su ffic ien t to su p p o rt a fi n d in g th a t h e h a s p e rs o n a l k n o w le d g e o f t h e m a tte r.” M .R .E . 6 0 2 . ¶ 2 2 . In co n sid e rin g w h e th e r th e ev id e n c e w a s su ffic ien t to u p h o ld th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict, th is C ou rtm ustdet erm i ne w hetherthe evi dence s how s “beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthat[ the]

### 10

ac cu sed co m m itted th e a ct ch arg ed an d that h e d id so u n d er su ch circu m stan ce s tha t eve ry el ementof

the of f ens e exi s t ed; a nd w her e the evi dence f ai l s t o meetthi s t es ti ti s i ns uf f i ci ent t o s uppor ta convi ct i on. ” B u sh , 895 So. 2d at843 ( quot i ng Ca rrv. S ta te , 208 So. 2d 886, 889 (M i ss. 1 96 8))
. “T he rel evan tq uest i on is w hether , aft er vi ew i ng the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost fa v o ra b le to th e p ro se c u tio n , an y ra tio n a l trier o f fa c t co u ld h a v e fo u n d th e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts of the cr i m e beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” B u sh , 895 So. 2d at843 ( quot i ng Ja c ks on v. V irg in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 5 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 L . E d . 2 d 5 6 0 (1 9 7 9 ))
. ¶23. C ons i der i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfa vor abl e t o the St at e, thi s C our tf i nds that ther e w as s uf

f i ci ente vi dence t o convi ctL ong of s el l i ng a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance w i thi n 1, 000 fe e t o f a p u b lic p a rk . W h e n a sk e d w h a t p ro p e rty b o rd e rs th e tra iler p a rk w h e re L o n g so ld R o d g e rs th e V a liu m , R o d g e rs te stifie d tha t th e traile r p a rk “m e e ts u p rig h t th e re at th e c ity park, the p ub l i c park t hat w e hav e i n O l i ve B ranch. I t ’s abou t100 f eetri gh tbeh i nd [ L on g’s] ho use. ” R od gers fur ther t est i fi ed t hat the park i s used for sof tball , fi shi ng , w al king, and “j ust city p ark stuff. ” T h e S tat e a lso p u b li sh e d th e s u rv eil lanc e v ideo to the jury w h il e R o d g ers ex p lai n ed that the b ri g h t l igh ts seen in the b ac k g rou n d w ere the ligh ts f ro m th e c ity p ark ’s
so ftb a ll field s. H e fu rth e r e x p lain e d th a t th e lin e se e n ru n n in g p e rp e n d icu lar to th e so ftb a ll f i el d l i ght s w as the f

ence thats epar at es the tr ai l erpa r k a nd the ci ty pa r k ni nety- s i x f eetaw ay fr o m th e s a le lo c a tio n . ¶2 4 . In li g h t of th ese fac ts, w e find that R o d g ers d id h av e p erso n al kn o w ledg e tha t th e p ark
w as , i n f act , a “publ i c park” and thatL ong s ol d R odger s a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance w i thi n 1, 000 f eetof a publ i c park. Fur therm or e, thi s C our tf i nds thata ny r at i onal j ur orc oul d have f ound b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t all th e e lem e n ts h a d b e e n m e t b y th e S tate in p ro v in g th e sa le

### 11

of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance w i thi n 1, 000 f eetof a publ i c p ark. A ccor di ngl y, thi s C our tf i nds L o n g ’s a rg u m e n t a n d a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r t o b e w ith o u t m e ri t. I V
. W hetherthe tr i alcour ter r ed i n s ent enci ng Long as a v i ol ent of f enderunderMis s is s i

ppi C ode Sec t i on 99- 19- 83. ¶25 . M i ssi ssi pp i C od e S ect i on 99 -19-83 p rovi des: E very per s on convi ct ed i n thi s s t at e of a f el ony w ho s hal l ha ve bee n convi ct ed tw ice p re v io u sly o f a n y fe lo n y o r fe d e ra l cr im e u p o n c h a rg e s s e p a ra tely b ro u g h t an d a risin g o u t o f s e p a ra te in c id e n ts a t d iffe re n t ti m e s a n d w h o sh a ll h a v e b e e n se n ten c e d to a n d se rv e d se p a ra te te rm s o f o n e (1 ) y e a r o r m o re in any s t at e and/ orf

eder al penal i ns t i tut i on, w hetheri n thi s st at e orel s ew her e, and w her e any one ( 1) of s uch f el oni es s hal l have been a cr i m e of vi ol ence s hal l be s ent ence d t o l i f

e i m pr i s onm ent , and s uch s ent ence s hal l notbe r educe d ors us pended nors hal l s uch per s on be el i gi bl e f orpar ol e orpr obat i on. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -19 -83 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶26. I ti s w el l
- s ett l ed i n thi s s t at e thats ent enci ng i s w i thi n the compl et e di s cr et i on of t he tr ia l c o u rt . Ho o

p s v . S ta te , 681 So. 2d 521, 537- 538 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng R e y n o ld s v . S ta te , 585 So. 2d 753, 756 ( M i s s . 1991) )
. “ Fur ther , the gener al rul e i n thi s s t at e i s thata s ent ence cannotbe di s turbed on appe al s o l ong a s i tdoe s notexce ed the maxi m um t erm al l ow ed by
s t atut e. ” I

d. at538 ( ci t i ng Flem m in gv. S ta te , 604 So. 2d 280, 302 ( M i s s . 1992) )
. Pur s uant t o M i s s i ssi pp i C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 83, the maxi m um t erm of l i f e i m pr i s onm entw i l l be im p o se d if th e S tate c a n p ro v e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t th e d e fe n d a n t h a s p re v io u sly been co nv i ct ed of

tw o orm or e f

el oni es on char ges s epar at el y br oughtand ar i s i ng outof
s epar at e i ndi ctm ent s atdi f f er entt i m es , thatthe def endantw as s ent enced t o and served separat e t erm s of one y ear orm ore i n an y st at e or f ederal pen al i nst i tuti on , and that atl east
o n e s u c h fe lo n y w a s a c ri m e o f v io le n c e . B ra dley v. S ta te , 9 3 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 8 , 1 0 2 8 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ), r eh’

g deni ed , cer t . deni ed , 933 So. 2d 982 ( M i s s . 2006) )
. “ T he m os tcom m on

### 12

m ethod of

demonstr at i ng pr i orconvi ct i ons f orenhanc ementpurpos es i s by i ntr oduci ng or i gi nal orcert i f

i ed copi es of

comm i t m entpaper s . ” D a vis v. S ta te , 9 95 S o. 2d 767, 774 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2008) ( quot i ng Fra zie r v . S ta te , 9 0 7 S o . 2 d 9 8 5 , 9 9 1 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 )). B a se d o n th e S tate ’s p re se n tatio n o f ev id e n c e , the trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in
s e n te n c in g L o n g a s a n h a b itu a l o ff e n d e r t o lif

e im p ri s o n m e n t. ¶2 7 . A t sen tenc ing , the S tat e p rese n ted th e tria l c o u rt w ith c e rtified c o p ies o f L o n g ’s
comm i t mentp a pe r s f

r om the St a t e o f

Col or a do s ho w i ng tha tLon g ha d be e n c on vi c t ed of thr ee f el oni es on tw o sepa r at e occ as i ons and had s erved s epar at e t erm s of m or e than one ye ar eac h i n pr i s on. O n M ay 24, 1996, L ong w as found gui l ty of tw o count s of s exual as s aul ton a c h ild , an d w a s s e n ten c e d to six y e a rs in p riso n fo r e a c h c o n v ictio n , w ith th e se n ten c e s to
run concurr ent l y. T he se nt enci ng cour t ’ s orde rst at ed t hatL ong had com m i t t ed the of f ens es c h a rg e d o n Ja n u a ry 2 5 , 1 9 9 1 . T h e se sa m e d o c u m e n ts a lso re fle c t th a t L o n g p lea d e d g u ilty t o aggr avat ed i nces tw i th hi s ow n chi l d i n A dams C ounty, C ol or ado, on February 25, 1998,
w i th an of

f ens e dat e of

Sept ember28, 1989. L on g subse quent l y w as s ent ence d t o tw el ve year s i n pr i s on f

oraggr avat ed i nces tw i th hi s ow n chi l d. ¶2 8 . In ad d it ion , L o n g ad m it s to h av ing b ee n co n v ict ed o f thes e three felon ies. H o w ev er, L ong ar gues thathi s C ol or ado convi ct i on f ors exual assaul tof

a chi l d w as cons ens ual s ex
w i th a s event een- year - ol d. H e f ur therar gues thatthe al l eged v i ct i m i n hi s C ol or ado convi ct i on foraggr avat ed i nces tw i th hi s ow n chi l d w as nothi s daught er . T hus , L ong t akes t he posi t i on tha tthe tr i a l c ou r te r r e d b y n otf ul l y i nv e s t i ga t i ng the na tur e of hi s pr i or c o n v ic tio n s , w h ic h w e re th e b a s is o f h is s e n te n c e a s a n h a b itu a l o ff e n d e r.Co lo. Re v. St at. § 1 8-6 -30 2 (1 )(b ). 4 

### 13 ¶29. C i t i ng U

.S . v. V ig il , 334 F. 3d 1215 ( 10th C i r . 2003) , the St at e ar gued that , acc or di ng to C o lorad o st ate l aw an d fede ral law , ag g rav ated i n ce st co n sti tutes a c ri m e o f vio lenc e. In V ig il , the di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i ned thatCol or ado’ s a ggr avat ed i nces ts t atut e c ont ai ned “a s 4
an elem en t th e thre aten ed u se o f ph y sical force
. . . . T h e d istri ct co u rtd eterm ined , h o w ev er, thatthe r equi s i t e t hr eatof f or ce w as i m pl i ed w heneve ra par enti nf l i ct s sexua l penetr at i on on hi s orherchi l d. ” V

ig il , 3 3 4 F . 3 d a t 1 2 1 9 . V ig il al s o not ed that“ps ychol ogi cal brut al i zat i on i s i nher enti n an of

f ens e l i ke thi s and i nces tand r ape ar e i n the s ame cat egory as both bei ng cr i m es of vi ol ence i nher ent l y w hetherornotr aw f or ce i s us ed. ” I

d. at1220 ( quot i ng U

. S. v. P assi , 62 F. 3d 1278, 1282 ( 10th C i r . 1995) )
. T he V ig il courtf

ound thateven c ons entby t he chi l d- vi ct i m w oul d notel i m i nat e the r i s k of phys i cal ha r m and thatthe age of the vi ct i m w as im m a te ri a l. V

ig il , 334 F. 3d at1223- 1224. T hus , the V ig il cou rtheld that aggravat ed incest
cons t i tut ed a “ cr i m e of

vi ol ence . ” I

d. ¶30. T her ef

or e, i ti s the opi ni on of

thi s C our tthatt he St at e pr es ent ed s uf f i ci entevi dence to m a k e th e req u isi te sh o w ing that L o n g p rev iou sly h ad b ee n co n v ict ed o f tw o o r m o re f el oni es on char ges s epar at el y br oughtand ar i s i ng outof s epar at e i ndi ctm ent s atdi f f er ent tim e s, th a t L o n g w a s s e n ten c e d to a n d se rv e d se p a ra te te rm s o f o n e y e a r o r m o re in C ol or ado’ s penal inst i tut i on, and thatatl eas tone convi ct i on w as f ora cr i m e of

vi ol ence . B eca us e s ent enci ng i s w i thi n t he com pl et e di s cr et i on of the tr i al court , thi s C our tf i nds that the tr i al courtdi d noterri n s ent enci ng L ong as an habi tual of f enderunderM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 83.

### 14

V
. W hetherLong’s s ent ence is uncons t i t ut i onal l y dis pr opor t i onat e. ¶ 3 1 . L o n g n o w c h a llen g e s h is s e n ten c e , c laim in g tha t l ife in p riso n w ith o u t th e p o ss ib ili ty
o f paro le f

o r th e sale o f a co n tr o ll ed sub stan ce w ith in 1,00 0 feet o f a pu b li c p a rk is
uncons t i tut i onal l y di s pr opor t i onat e and cons t i tut es c ruel a nd unus ual puni s hm ent . R ece nt l y, i n C u m m in gs v . S ta te , ourC our tof A ppeal s f

ound: [ a] s a gen eral rul e, a s ent ence thatdoes notexce ed the maxi m um per i od of tim e a llo w e d b y s ta tu te w ill n o t b e d is tu rb e d o n a p p e a l. W a lla c e v . S ta te , 607 So. 2d 1184, 1188 ( M i s s . 1992)
. A s ent ence thati s “gr os s l y di s pr opor t i onat e” t o the cri m e com m i t t ed i s s ubj ectt o att ack on Ei ghth A m endmentgr ounds a p p l y i n g th e p r o p o r t i o n a l i ty t e s tf r o m S o lem v. H

e lm , 463 U . S. 277, 290- 291, 1 0 3 S . C t. 30 0 1 , 7 7 L . E d . 2 d 6 3 7 (1 9 8 3 ); buts ee H ar m el in v. Mi chi

gan , 501 U . S. 957, 965, 111 S. C t . 2680, 115 L . E d. 2d 836 ( 1991) ( the Solem t est s houl d onl y a ppl y w hen a compar i s on of the cr i m e t o the s ent ence l eads t o an inferen ce o f gro ss d ispro p o rt ion ali ty). C um m ings , 2 9 S o . 3 d 8 5 9 , 8 6 1 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 1 0 ). A lso , th is C o u rt “ h a s c o n sis ten tly h e ld thats ent ence s underthe habi tual
- of f enders t atut e do notcons t i tut e cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent . ” I

d. ( ci t i ng Hu n tle

y v . S ta te , 5 3 4 S o . 2 d 5 7 2 , 5 7 5 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ); Jacks on v. S ta te , 4 8 3 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 3 , 1 3 5 5 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ); B a k e r v . S ta te , 39 4 S o. 2d 13 76 , 13 78 -79 (M i ss. 1981) )
. W hi l e the C um m ings c o u rt h e ld th a t C u m m in g s’s life s e n ten c e d id n o t g iv e rise to th e inf e re n c e o f g ro ss d isp ro p o rtio n a lity , a n d thu s, the re w a s n o n e e d fo r an E ig h th A m endmentpropor t i onal i ty t es t , thi s C our tnot es thatthe tr i al courti n the ca s e bef or e us c o n d u c te d a p ro p o rt io n a lity a n a ly s is
. C um m ings , 29 So. 3d at861. A f t erconduct i ng t he pr op ort i on al i ty anal ys i s , the tr i al courtf ound thatL ong’ s l i f

e s ent ence w as not
u n c o n s titu tio n a lly d is p ro p o rt io n a te . I d. CO NC L US I ON

### 15

¶32. Fort he f

or egoi ng r eas ons , thi s C our tf i nds thatL ong’ s convi ct i on w as notagai ns t the
overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence and thatthe St at e pr es ent ed com pet entpr oof thatthe
s al e occ urr ed w i thi n 1, 000 f eetof a publ i c park. W e f

ur therf i nd thatL ong’ s s ent ence c o m p lies w ith M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -8 3 , is n o t u n c o n stitu tio n a lly d isp ro p o rtio n a te
a n d d o e s n o t co n stitu te c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t u n d e r th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. T her ef or e, w e af

f i r m t he convi ct i on by t he C i r cui tC our tof D eSot o C ounty, as w el l as t he
s ent ence i ti m pos ed. ¶33. CO NVI CTI ON OF THE S AL E OF A CONT ROLL ED S UB S TANCE, DI AZ EPAM , W I THI N O NE TH OU S AND ( 1 0 0 0 ) FEE T OF THE REAL PROPERTY OF A P AR K A ND S E NT E NC E OF L I F E I M P RI S ON M E NT , W I T HOU T T HE EL I GI BI LI TY F OR P AROL E, AS A HAB I TU AL OF F EN DE R UNDE R M . C. A. S E CT I ON 9 9 - 1 9 - 8 3 , I N T HE CU S T OD Y OF TH E M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . AP P E L L AN T S HA L L P AY AL L CO S T S OF C O U R T , $1 , 00 0 F IN E P A Y A B L E W IT H IN N IN E T Y D A Y S (90) FR O M H IS RE LE AS E F ROM I NCARC ER AT I ON S HOULD T HAT E VE R OCCUR. A P P E L L A N T S H A L L B E G I V E N 2 5 0 D A Y S C R E D I T F O R T I M E S E R V E D . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR, K I T C H E N S , C H A N D L E R A N D P I E R C E , J J ., C O N C U R .