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 7 8 5 - S CT DONOVAN FOREM

AN
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 02/ 2009 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LAM AR P I CKARD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: CLAI BORNE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : M I C H A E L E R I C B R O WN AT T OR NE YS 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 BY : W
. G LEN N W A TTS SCOTT STUA RT D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y : A L E X A N D E R C
. M A R T IN NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY DI S P OS I T I ON:
M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: AFFI RM ED I N PA RT; VA CA TED I N PA RT; R E V E R S E D IN P A R T A N D R E M A N D E D 01/ 20/ 2011

B E F O R E C A R L SO N , P . J. , L A M A R A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. D o n o v an F o rem an w as c o n v ict ed o f si x felon y co u n ts ari sing from h is at tem p t t o fi re a handgun a nd hi s s ubs equentdi s char ge of thathandg un . H e argue s thatthe r es ul t i ng
s ent ence s f

orf ourcount s of

aggr avat ed as s aul t , one countof m ur der , and one countof
s hoot i ng i nt o a vehi cl e vi ol at e the doubl e- j eopar dy cl aus e and the comm on- l aw doctr i ne of
m er ger . H e a l s o a s s e r t s tha tthe tr i a l c ou r te rr on e ou s l y i mpos e d a s e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the

### 2

sta tu to ry m a x im u m fo r sh o o tin g in to a v e h icle
. W e fin d the trial c o u rt e rre d in re fu sin g to di s m i s s thr ee c ount s of

aggr avat ed as s aul t , and thatthe tr i al cour ti m pos ed an i l l egal s ent ence f ors hoot i ng i nt o a vehi cl e. W e f i nd no vi ol at i on of

the doubl e-

j eopar dy cl aus e. FACTS ¶2. A ta ppr oxi m at el y 1 a. m . on M ay 10, 2009, A shl ey Jon es pi cked up her cou s i ns J ew el i s a K el l y, Shani que K el l y, C hat oni a M i nor , and Edw ar d M i nor . T hey had be en
s oci al i zi ng w i th a gr oup of m en, one of

w hom w as D onovan F orem an. A s J ones and her
cous i ns began t o dr i ve aw ay, s he hea r d a guns hotand di s cover ed thatE dw ar d M i norhad b e e n s h o t in th e h e a d
. ¶3
. Shani que K el l y t es t i f i ed t hataf

t e rs he a nd he rc ou s i ns go ti nt o the c a r , s he s aw For eman pul l outa gun, poi nti ta tthe car , a nd try t o s hooti t . She s t at ed thatFor eman t hen cocke d the gun aga i n and s hoti t , and the bul l etw entt hr ough t he back w i nds hi el d. J es s i ca E ar l s , a bys t ander , al s o t es t i f i ed thats he s aw For eman shooti nt o J ones ’ s car. T he bul l et
s tru c k E d w a rd in th e s id e o f t h e h e a d a n d k ille d h im
. ¶ 4
. C a rl R a y F lem in g , a n in v e stig a to r w ith th e C laib o rn e C o u n ty S h e riff’s D e p a rtm e n t, test if ied th at F o rem an ad m itted th at he h ad p o inted a n ine-m il li m eter g u n at Jo n e s’s c ar, beca us e he had f

el thi s br other s a nd cous i ns w er e thr eat ened. For eman t ol d Fl emi ng thatthe g u n a c c id e n ta lly h a d fi re d
. DI S CU S S I ON I. W h e th e r th e tr ia l co u r t e r r e d in fa ili n g to g r a n t F o r e m a n ’s m o tio n fo r d ism iss a l. ¶ 5
. P rio r t o trial an d ag a in afte r th e S tate ’s c a se -in -c h ief , F o re m a n m o v e d to d ism iss a ll
c ou nt s , a r gu i ng tha ta c on vi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e o n a l l c ou nt s woul d vi ol a t e the doubl e-

### Stat e v . Ol iver , 856 So. 2d 328, 331 ( Mis s. 2003). 1 

### Id. (quoting Ale

xander v. Brown , 793 So. 2d 601, 603 ( Mis s. 2001))
. 2

### Id. 3 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 97-3- 7(2) (b) (Re v. 2006) (e mpha si s a dded)
. 4 

### 3 jeop ard y clau se o f ou r st ate a n d fed era l con sti tuti o n s. T h is C o u rtha s ruled that a tri al co u rt faced w i th such a m oti on “shou l d co nsi der the ev i den ce fai rl y an d sho uld di sm i ss the case onl y i f i tw oul d f

i nd f orthe def endant
. ” The c our ts houl d de ny the m ot i on “ ‘ onl y i f the j udge 1
w oul d be obl i ged t o fi nd fort he [ St at e] i f t he [ St at e’ s ] evi dence w er e al l the evi dence of f er ed i n the ca s e. ’ ” T hi s C our tappl i es the s ubs t ant i al
- evi dence /m ani f es t - err ors t andar d of

r evi ew 2 to a g ra n t o r d e n ial o f a m o tio n to d ism iss th e in d ictm e n t. 3 ¶ 6
. F o re m a n a rg u e s th a t h e w a s im p e rm iss ib ly in d icte d a n d c o n v icte d o n a ll s ix c o u n ts bas ed on the sam e act : f i r i ng one s hoti nt o the vehi cl e. H ow ever , For eman i gnor es the evi dence bef

or e the j ury thathe had tr i ed t o s hootthe gun once bef or e f i r i ng the f

at al s hot that stru ck E d w ard M ino r. F o rem an ’s fi rsteffo rtto d isch arg e the gu n w o u ld sup p o rta jury
ver di ctf ora cha r ge of

aggr avat ed as s aul tw i th a dea dl y w eapon. A d efendan ti s gui l ty of agg ravat ed assaulti f he or s he “(b ) a tte m p ts t o caus e orpurpos el y orknow i ngl y caus es bodi l y i nj ury to anot herw i th a dea dl y w eapon orotherm eans l i kel y t o pr oduce de ath or
s e ri o u s b o d ily h a rm [.]” 4 

### ¶7. B u t w e d o fin d th a t th e S tate e rro n e o u sly c h a rg e d ( a n d F o re m a n w a s e rro n e o u sly convi ct ed of

) f ourc ount s of

aggr avat ed as s aul tw hen the evi dence s uppor t s onl y one at t em pt . U nd er the fact s of this case, t o b e gu i l ty o f f ou r counts of aggravated assaul t , F orem an m ust

### Bro ok s v. Sta te , 18 So. 3d 833, 841 ( Mis s. 2009). 5 

### Lee v. State , 469 So. 2d 1225, 1228 ( Mis s. 1985). 6 

### Gra ves v. Sta te , 969 So. 2d 845, 847 ( Mis s. 2007) ( em phas is adde d). 7

### Deed s v. Sta te , 27 So. 3d 1135, 1139 (Mi ss . 2009)
. 8 

### 4 have a t t empt ed t o caus e i nj ury t o al l f ouri ndi vi dual s . For eman’ s att emptt o di s char ge the 5 g u n o n e tim e d o e s n o t su p p o rtth e in fe re n c e th a t h e in te n d e d to in ju re fo u r i n d iv id u a ls . W e f i nd the evi dence i ns uf

f i ci entt o supportf

our c onvi ct i ons of

aggr avat ed as s aul t . T her ef or e,
w e f i nd the tr i al courterr ed i n f ai l i ng t o di s m i s s thr ee of the aggr avat ed- as s aul tchar ges , and
w e v a c a te F o re m a n ’s c o n v ictio n s a n d se n ten c e s fo r th re e c o u n ts o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt. ¶8
. N ex t, w e ad d ress w h ethe r th e se n tenc es fo r one countof aggr avat ed as s aul t , one count of s hoot i ng i nt o a vehi cl e, a nd one c ountof murde rvi ol at e the doubl e- j eopar dy cl aus e of

the Fi f th A m endmentt o the 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 22 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on of 1890. “E ach of t hes e pr ovi s i ons guar ant ees t o eac h ci t i zen that h e sh a ll n o t tw ice b e p lac e d in je o p a rd y fo r th e sa m e o ffe n se [an d ] [ w ]e c o n stru e th e d o u b le j eopar dy cl aus e of

ourC ons t i tut i on cons i s t entw i th authori t at i ve cons truct i ons of the C on st i tuti on of the U nit ed S tat es.” T he d ou ble- j eop ardy cl ause aff

ords three prot ect i on s: 6 “( 1) pr ot ect i on f

r om a sec ond pros ecut i on fort he s ame of f ens e af t eracqui t t al , ( 2) pr ot ect i on from a se co n d p rose cu ti o n for the sam e o ffen se a ft er c o n v ict ion , a n d (3) pr ot ect i on f r om
m ult i ple punis hm ents f

or the sam e off

ense . ” For eman ar gues thatthi s cas e f al l s w i thi n the 7 pr ot ect i on agai ns tm ul t i pl e puni s hm ent s f orthe s ame of

f ens e. W e appl y a de novo r evi ew t o c l a i ms o f

d o u b l e j e o p a r d y a n d t o q u e s t i o n s o f l a w. 8L ee , 469 So. 2d at1229. 9 

### Graves , 969 So. 2d at

847. 10 

### Sectio n 9 7-3 -19 pro vid es in relev ant p art that: 11 

### (1) The ki ll ing of

a human being without t he a uthorit y of l aw by any me ans or inanymann er shall be murd er in the fo llow ingcases: (a) Wh en d on e with del ibe ratedes ign to effect thedeath of

theper son ki ll ed, or of

any hum an bei n g ; (b ) Whendo ne inthe co mmissionof anact eminently d ang erou s to othe rs and e vinc ing a

depraved hear

t, re gardle ss of hum an l if e, although wi tho ut anypre m e di t at e d d e s i gnt o e f f e c t thede ath o f

anyparti c ular ind ividual[.] Mis s. Code Ann. § 97-3- 19 (Re v. 2006)
. Sec ti on 97-25- 47 provide s that a per son is guilt y of shooting into a

vehi cl e i f heor 12 

### she“wi lf ully shoot [s ] any firearm s or hurl [s ] any mis si leat , or into, any train, bus , truc k, motor ve hic le , depot, st ation, or any othe r transpor tati on f ac il it y[. ] ” Mis s. CodeAnn. § 97- 25-47 ( Rev. 2006). Blockburger v

. U. S. , 284 U. S. 299, 304, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed. 306 ( 1932). 13 

### 5 ¶9. T he ag gravat ed-ass aultconv i ct i on ar i ses fr om F orem an’s se p a ra te a c t of

att empt i ng t o di s char ge the gun, an ac tthatw as comm i t t ed cl os e i n t i m e t o the actual di s char ge of the gun. A nd thi s Courtpr evi ous l y ha s rul ed that“ [ t ] empora l pr oxi m i ty doe s notge ner at e a j udi ci al uni on of

s epar at e and di s t i nctcr i m i nal act s , nordoes t he pr es ence of a comm on nucl eus of

oper at i ve fact s . ” I n otherw or ds , For eman’ s att emptt o di s char ge the gun 9
occurr ed pr i ort o and s epar at e f r om the ac tual di s char ge of the f i r earm and w as ther ef

or e a sep ara te an d d ist inct crim inal ac t. T h ere fore , there is no “sa m e o ffen se” for p u rpo ses o f a do ub l e-j eop ardy an al ysi s. 10 ¶10. B ut the one actof di s char gi ng the gun r es ul t ed i n a j ury verdi ctfort w o cri m es:
m urder and shoo t i ng i nto a veh i cl e. T o determ i ne w hetherthe do ub l e-j eop ardy c l ause

11 12 appl i es , thi s C our tappl i es the B lockbur ger t es t . I n B lock bu rger , the U ni t ed St at es 13

### Id. 14 

### Graves , 969 So. 2d at

847-48. 15 

### Id. at 848 (e mpha si s a dded)
. 16

### Pea cock

v. Sta te , 97 0 S o. 2 d 1 97 , 19 9 (M iss. Ct. App . 20 07 ). 17

### Id. at 199-200. 18 

### 6 S u p r e me Co u r tru l e d th a t : “ [ W ] h e r e th e s a me a c to rt r a n s a c t i o n c o n s t i tu t e s a v i o l a t i o n o f two d i s t i n c ts t a tu t o ry p r o v i s i o n s , th e t e s tt o b e a p p l i e d t o d e t e rmi n e wh e th e rth e r e a r e two of f ens es oronl y one, i s w hethereac h pr ovi s i on r equi r es pr oof of a f actw hi ch the otherdoes not . ” I n G ra v e s v . S ta te , thi s C our tcons i der ed the sa m e i s s ue i n a shoot i ng w hi ch r es ul t ed 14 i n convi ct i ons f

oraggr avat ed as s aul tand s hoot i ng i nt o a vehi cl e. I n thatcas e, w e hel d: 15 G iv e n th e e le m e n ts re q u ir e d to p ro v e e a c h o f t h e s e c ri m e s , B lockbur ger i ns truct s us t o det erm i ne w hetherther e ar e el ement s i n eac h of f ens e not c o n tain e d in th e o th e r. W e fin d th a t th e re a re . T o p ro v e a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, no el ementr equi r es proof of a f i r earm bei ng s hoti nt o a vehi cl e. T o pr ove s h o o ti n g i n to a v e h ic le , th e re is n o re q u ir e m e n t o f p ro o f o f b o d ily in ju ry . . .

. A s i tis i nco nsequ enti al tha tthese tw o cri m es t oo k p lace at the sam e t i m e, so i tis uni m por tantthatthe s am e ev i dence w as us ed to convi ct G r aves of

both of thes e cr i m es . C l ear l y, aggr avat ed as s aul tand s hoot i ng i nt o a vehi cl e ea ch re q u ire s p ro o f o f fa c ts th e o th e r d o e s n o t. 16 L i kew i s e, m ur derand s hoot i ng i nt o a vehi cl e ea ch r equi r es pr oof of a f actw hi ch the other does not . “[ M ] ur der , unl i ke s hoot i ng int o a v ehi cl e, r equi r es the del i ber at e ki l l i ng of an 17 i ndi vi du al
. O n the otherhand, s hoot i ng i nt o a vehi cl e r equi r es onl y thatan i ndi vi dual
w i l l f ul l y s hooti nt o orata vehi cl e[
. ] ” A nd cons equent l y, ther e ca n be no vi ol at i on of the 18
comm on- l aw doctr i ne of m er ger , w hi ch pr ovi de s tha ttw o i ndepende ntcr i m es m er ge i nt o one
o n ly w h e n th e g re a terc rim e n e c e ss a rily in c lu d e s a ll th e e lem e n ts o f th e les se r c rim e , as w ith

### Fa raga v. State , 514 So. 2d 295, 310- 11 (Mi ss . 1987) (Robe rt son, J., conc urring) 19 

### (e xplaining theme rge r doc trine ). See Meek s v. Sta te , 604 So. 2d 748, 751 ( Mis s. 1992). 20 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 97-25- 47 (Re v. 2006)
. 21 T h e im p o sitio n o f a n ill e g a l se n ten c e resu lt s w h en the p u n ishm en t do es n o t “co n form 22 t o the appl i cabl e pena l ty s t atut e. ” Lle r e na v. U . S. , 5 0 8 F
. 2 d 7 8 , 8 0 (5th C ir
. 1 9 7 5 ). 

### 7 a l es s er - i ncl uded of

f ens e. O urc om m on- l aw a nal ys i s of m er gerhas been s ubs um ed by the 19 B lockbur

gert es t . T her ef

or e, w e conc l ude thatFor eman’ s s epar at e convi ct i ons and 20 puni s hm ent s f

orone c ountof

a ggr avat ed as s aul t , one c ountof s hoot i ng i nt o a vehi cl e, and
o n e c o u n t o f m u rd e r d o n o t v io la te th e d o u b le -j e o p a rd y c la u s e o r t h e m e rg e r d o c tr in e . I I . W het her t he t ri al court i m pose d an i l l egals ent ence. ¶11. For em an assert s t hat t he t ri al co urterr oneous l y i m pos ed a t en- years ent ence f or
s hoot i ng i nt o a vehi cl e, w hen the s t atut ory maxi m um i s f i ve year s . The St at e conc edes that th e m a x im u m s e n te n c e fo r sh o o tin g in to a v e h icle in th is c a se is fiv e y e a rs, a n d th a t th is C o u rts h o u ld r e m a n d f o r r e s e n te n c in g . A nd i n f act , the puni s hm entf

ors hoot i ng i nt o a vehi cl e i s a “ f

i ne of notl es s than one hundr ed dol l ar s ( $100. 00) norm or e than tw o hundr ed f i f ty dol l ar s ( $250. 00) , or[ i ncar cer at i on i n] the cus t ody of the depa r tm entof

corr ect i ons not le s s th a n o n e (1 ) y e a r n o r m o re th a n fi v e (5 ) y e a rs , o r b y b o th s u c h fi n e a n d im p ri s o n m e n t.” 21 ¶12. For eman’ s t en- year s ent ence i s i l l egal , as i t i s not w i thi n t he bo un ds of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 25- 47. A nd w e have r ecogni zed thata def endanthas a f

undament al r i ght 22

### Ivy v. Sta te , 731 So. 2d 601, 603 ( Mis s. 1999). 23 

### Jefferso n v. S

tate , 958 So. 2d 1276, 1281 (Mis s. Ct. App. 2007) (hol ding t hat the 24 

### pro per remedy fo r impo sitionof anillegal sentence is to remandfor resentencin g in ac cordanc e wi th t

he a ppli ca blest at ute ). 8 t o a l egal s ent ence . T her ef or e, w e vac at e the t en-year sent ence i m pos ed f orvi ol at i ng 23 Sect i on 97- 25- 47, and r emand f orr es ent enci ng. 24 CO NC L US I ON ¶13. W e vac at e For eman’ s convi ct i on of thr e e c ou nt s of

a gg r a va t e d a s s a ul t , as the evi dence
su p p o rte d o n ly o n e c o u n t. W e fin d n o v io latio n o f th e d o u b le- jeo p a rd y c lau se a n d a ffirm h is
c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e o f o n e c o u n t o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt an d o n e c o u n t o f m u rd e r. W e al s o af f i rm hi s c onvi ct i on f

orone countof

s hoot i ng i nt o a vehi cl e, butr emand t hi s cas e f or
rese n tenc ing in co m p li an ce w ith M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 9 7 -25 -47 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶ 1 4
. C O UN T I : C O NV I CT I O N OF M URD ER AND S ENTENCE OF LI FE I M P RI S ON M E NT I N T HE C US T OD Y OF T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR ECTI ON S , AFF I RM ED. CO UNT I I : CO NVI CTI ON OF AG GR AVA TED AS S AU L T AND S E NT E NC E OF T E N ( 1 0 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M ISS ISS IP P I D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S , A F F IR M E D . C O U N T III : C O N V I C T I O N O F A G G R A V A T E D A SS A U L T A N D SE N T E N C E O F T E N ( 10) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RRECTI ON S , VAC ATED. CO UN T I V: CO NVI CTI ON OF AG GR AVA TED AS S AU L T AN D S EN T E NC E OF T E N ( 1 0 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DEP ARTM EN T OF CORRE CT I ONS , VACAT ED . COUNT V: C O N V I C T I O N O F A G G R A V A T E D A SSA U L T A N D SE N T E N C E O F T E N ( 10) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RRE CT I ON S , VAC ATED. CO UNT VI : CO NVI CTI ON OF S HO OTI NG I NTO AN AU T OMOBI L E AN D S E NT E NC E OF TE N ( 1 0 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F THE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M ENT OF CORR EC TI ONS , RE VE RS ED I N P ART AND RE M ANDE D F OR RE - S EN TE NCI NG. S EN TE NCE S I N COUNT S I I AND VI A R E T O B E S E R V E D C O N C U R R E N T L Y W I T H C O U N T I . W AL L E R, C. J . , CARL S ON AN D G RA VE S , P . J J . , DI CK I NS ON , RA ND OL P H, 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 .