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 0 3 2 7 - S CT
I VAN RUS

S ELL M CCL ELLAN
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 26/ 2009 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . J AM ES T. KI TCHE NS, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LOW NDES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY : G EO RG E T. H O LM ES LESL I E S. LEE G A R Y G O O D W IN AT T ORNE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY : L ADONN A C . HOL L AND DI S T RI CT AT T ORNE Y: 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 - 03/ 25/ 2010 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 C A R L SO N , P . J. , R A N D O L P H A N D K I T C H E N S, JJ. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. Fol l ow i ng a j ury tr i al i n Low ndes Count y Ci r cui tCourt , I van R us s el l M cC l el l an w as c o n v icte d o f p o ss e ss in g tw o m e th a m p h e tam in e p re c u rso rs a n d p o ss e ss in g 2 5 0 d o sa g e u n its
o f p seu d o ep h ed ri n e u n d er M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n s 4 1 -29 -31 3 (1)(a) a n d 4 1 -29 -31 3 (2)(c),
r es pect i vel y. M cC l el l an w as s ent ence d as a habi tual of f enderunderM i ssi ssi ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 81 t o s erve thi r ty year s i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof

### 2

C orr ect i ons f

orthe pr ecur s orconvi ct i on and fi ve yea r s f orthe ps eudoephe dr i ne convi ct i on, th o s e s e n te n c e s to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly . FACTS ¶2. O n D ece m ber5, 2007, O f f i cer J oh n P evey of the C olum bu s Po l i ce D epartm ent
r es ponded t o a ca l l f

r om di s pat ch i nf

orm i ng hi m thata w hi t e mal e and aw hi t e f emal e had j ustm ade l ar ge pur chas es of ps eudoephe dr i ne atFr ed’ s D ol l arSt or e i n C ol um bu s, M i s s i s s i ppi . A ttr i al , Pevey expl ai ned thatps eudoephe dr i ne i s the mai n i ngr edi entus ed f or the manuf

actur e of methamphet ami ne. A Fr ed’ s s al es cl erk t ol d pol i ce thatthe man and
w om an ea ch had pur chas ed f ourboxes of ps eudoephe dr i ne, f ora t ot al of

ei ghtboxes . T he
s al es cl erk al so rel at ed t o pol i ce thatthe pai rhad l ef tthe s t or e i n an ol der
- m odel bl ue a u to m o b ile , a n d th a t th e v e h ic le w a s la s t s e e n tr a v e lin g e a s t o n th e H ig h w a y 8 2 b y p a s s . ¶ 3 . P e v e y se t o u t to fin d th is c a r w h ile M iss iss ip p i B u re a u o f N a rc o tic s A g e n t E d d ie H aw ki ns pr ocee ded t o Fr ed’ s D ol l ar St or e t o i nves t i gat e the pur chas e f urther . H aw ki ns l earned f r om the Fre d’ s sal es cl erk t hatt he coupl e had l ef ti n an ol der
- m odel bl ue M us t ang w i th an A l abama t ag, and thatthe i ndi vi dual s had us ed i dent i f i cat i on t o pur chas e the ps eudoephe dr i ne w hi ch i dent i f i ed them as I van M cC l el l an and K at i na M cG ee. H aw ki ns re la y e d th is in fo rm a tio n to P e v e y v ia ra d io . ¶4. Pevey s ubs equent l y l ocat ed the M us t ang at D ut ch V i l l age Fam i l y Pharm acy. Pevey parked ac r os s the str eett o m ai nt ai n survei l l ance of M cC l el l an and M cG ee, and he c ont i nued to fo ll o w them after th ey leftD u tch V il lag e a n d p roc ee d ed to D o ll ar G en era l Store , w h ere the s us pect s l earned the st or e di d notcarry ps eudoephe dr i ne pr oduct s . A s Pevey cont i nued t o f ol l ow the s us pect s , H aw ki ns w enti nt o the D ut ch V i l l age Fam i l y Pharm acy a nd l earned

### From therec ord, it

cannot bedet er

mined whe ther the c onsent to se arch Mc Cle ll an’ s 1 

### car was v erbal o r writtenin fo rm. Agent Hawkinst e s ti f

i e d t hat “ s odium hydroxi de i s your

everyday household Drano, 2 

### or R ed D evil L ye,” an d th at “startingfluidhas eth er in it.” 3 th a t th e su sp e c ts h a d p u rc h a se d m o re p se u d o e p h e d rin e . A g a in , A g e n t H a w k in s re lay e d th is in fo rm a tio n to O ff

ic e r P e v e y v ia ra d io . ¶5. Fr om D ol l arG ener al , Pevey f ol l ow ed M cC l el l an and M cG ee ont o H i ghw ay 50 and ul t i m at el y s t opped them on H i gh w ay 182 betw een N ew H ope R oad and M ountV ernon R o a d . P e v e y tes tified th a t, afte r h e h a d v e rifie d th e id e n tit ies o f th e o c c u p a n ts o f th e v e h icle
as I van R us s el l M cC l el l an and K at i na M cG ee, he obt ai ned cons entt o search t he vehi cl e. 1 U pon s ear chi ng the car , O f f i cerP evey di s cover ed a t ot al of 308 pse udoephedr i ne pi l l s , thr ee cans of s t art er f

l uid, thr ee c ans of

gr anul ardr ai n opener , a pac k of unopened l i thi um b a tterie s, a n d a p las tic b a g w ith F re d ’s D o llar S to re ins ig n ia o n it. A lso fo u n d w e re a b o ttl e 2
o f i so p rop y l al co h o l an d a n o th e r b o x o f pse u d o ep h ed ri n e p il ls i n a su it ca se in side the c ar. A ttr i al , A gentH aw ki ns t es t i f i ed thateac h of

thes e i t ems i s a know n m ethamphet ami ne pr ecur s or , and he e xpl ai ned how eac h of thes e pr oduct s i s us ed i n m anu factur i ng m ethamphet ami ne. ¶6. M cC l el l an and M cG ee i m m edi at el y w er e arr es t ed, and, i n due cour s e, M cC l el l an w as char ged i n a tw o- counti ndi ctm ent . T he f i r s tcountchar ged a vi ol at i on of t he provi s i on of th e M iss iss ip p i C o d e th a t p ro h ib its th e sim u ltan e o u s p o ss e ss io n o f tw o o r m o re c h e m ica ls appea r i ng on a l i s tof i dent i f i ed pr ecur s ormat er i al s us ed i n the m anuf acture of
m e th a m p h e tam in e u n d e r c irc u m sta n c e s d e m o n stra tin g that the p o sses so r kn ew (o r re a so n a b ly sh o u ld h av e k n o w n ) th at th e m aterial s w o u ld b e u sed il lega ll y to m an u fac ture

### 4

m ethamphet ami ne. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 41- 29- 313( 1) ( a) (Rev. 2009). T he mat er i al s named i n the i ndi ctm entw er e l i thi um ( batt er i es ) , s odi um hydr oxi de ( gr anul ardr ai n opener ) , ether ( s t art erf l ui d) , and i s opr opyl al cohol . T he s econd c ountc har ged a vi ol at i on of the pr ovi s i on of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode thatpr ohi bi t s the pos s es s i on of 250 dos age uni t s of

ps eudoephe dr i ne, know i ng, orunderci r cum s t ance s w her e one r eas onabl y s houl d know , thatthe ps eudoephe dr i ne w i l l be us ed t o manuf actur e a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance unl aw f ul l y. M i s s . C ode A n n . § 4 1 -2 9 -3 1 3 (2 )( c )( I) (R e v . 2 0 0 9 ). M c C le lla n w a s c o n v ic te d o n b o th c o u n ts . I S S UES ¶7 . M cC l el l an r ai s es f ouri s s ue s o n a pp e a l : ( 1) whethe rthe r e was a n i l l egal s ear ch,
r equi r i ng excl us i on of

( A ) the i t ems f

ound i n the ca rand ( B ) hi s conf es s i on t o pol i ce, ( 2)
w h ethe r th e v erd ictis sup p o rt ed b y the w eigh t of th e e v iden ce , (3) w h ethe r th e tr ial co u rt al l ow ed i m pr operi m peac hm entevi dence , and (4) w hetherm er gerprohi bi t ed pr os ecut i on f or both posse s s i on of

pr ecur s or s and pos s es s i on of m or e than 250 dos age uni t s of p s e u d o e p h e d ri n e . DI S CUS S I ON 1. A
. Moti on t o S up

press the S eized Item s ¶8. M cC l el l an moved t o excl ude the i t em s sei zed i n the s ear ch of hi s vehi cl e, but the
m o tio n w a s o v e rru led . T h e trial ju d g e h e ld th a t th e sto p o f M c C lella n ’s v e h ic le w a s v a lid and thati tw as m ade w i th s uf f i ci entpr obabl e caus e f

oran i nves t i gat ory s t op. M cC l el l an cl ai m s that the o ff

i cers l acked reas on able s uspici on t o m ake an i nv est i gatory st op be ca u se th e in itia l d e s c ri p tio n o f t h e s u s p e c t v e h ic le b y p o lic e d is p a tc h w a s v a g u e .

### 5

¶9 . A p o lice o ffic e r m a y c o n d u c t an inv esti g atory stop if h e o r she h as “re aso n a b le suspi ci on , groun ded i n specif i c and a rt i culabl e fact s, that a pers on [ the o ff i cer encou nter s]
w as i nvol ved i n ori s w ant ed i n connec t i on w i th a compl et ed f el ony . . . or‘ s om e obj ect i ve m an if estati o n th at th e p erso n stop p ed is, o r i s ab o u t t o b e e n g ag ed in crim inal ac ti v ity . ’” W ill ia m so n v. Sta te , 876 So. 2d 353, 355 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng Flo y d v. S ta te , 500 So. 2d 989 , 99 2 ( M i s s . 19 86 ) ) . Rea s on a bl e s us pi c i on may b e ba s e d o n the of f i c e r ’ s per s onal
o b s e rv a tio n s o r a n in fo rm a n t’ s tip , a s lo n g a s t h e t ip b e a rs a n in d ic iu m o f r e lia b ility . I d. ( ci t i ng Floyd v. Cit

y of Cr ys tal Springs , 749 So. 2d 110, 118 ( M i s s . 1999)) . In W il liam s on , pol i ce r ece i ved i nf

orm at i on fr om pharm acy empl oyees t hatt w o w hi t e mal es had pur chas ed la rg e q u a n titie s o f p s e u d o e p h e d ri n e fr o m tw o d if fe re n t s to re s . I

d. a t 35 4 . O n e o f th e ti p sters t ol d pol i ce thatthe tw o w hi t e men had l ef tthe s t or e i n a w hi t e van, and he ga ve pol i ce the lic e n s e p la te n u m b e r a n d th e d ir e c tio n in w h ic h h e h a d s e e n th e v a n tr a v e lin g . I d. A pol i ce of f i cerl ocat ed the van a nd f ol l ow ed i tt o a Fr ed’ s D ol l arSt or e, w her e he obt ai ned cons ent to s e a rc h th e v e h ic le . I

d. I n the W

il liam s on cas e, thi s C our tconcl uded thatthe i nf orm at i on pr ovi ded by the pharm acy empl oyee, “ the col orof the van, the num bera nd r ace of the occupa nt s , the l i cens e pl at e num bera nd the di r ect i on of tr avel , i ncl udi ng the n am e of the
s tr eet , ” pr ovi ded a s uf

f i ci entba s i s f

orthe of f i cer ’ s r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op the vehi cl e. I d. a t 3 5 6 . ¶1 0 . W h il e in th is case the in it ial de scripti o n m ay ha v e b ee n som ew h at va g u e, po li ce w ere abl e t o acc um ul at e m any m ore det ai l s aboutthe i ndi vi dual s , thei rps eudoephe dr i ne pur chas es , and the vehi cl e i n w hich t hey w er e tr avel i ng bef or e of f i cer s m ade the i nves t i gat ory st op . A gentH aw ki ns i nves t i gat ed atboth Fr ed’ s D ol l arSt or e and D ol l ar

### 6

G ener al S t or e soon af

t ert he sus pect s had dri ven aw ay f r om each. H aw ki ns re l ayed t o O f f i cer Pevey the i nf

orm at i on he had obt ai ned, and Pevey s ubs equent l y made the i nves t i gat ory s t op af t err eas oni ng thathe had enough i nf orm at i on, orpr obabl e caus e, t o do s o. T hus , the tr i al
courtdi d noterri n denyi ng M cC l el l an’ s m ot i on t o suppr es s t he f rui t s of the vehi cl e s ear ch. 1. B
. Mot i on t o Suppr es s the C onf es s i on ¶11. A f

t erM cC l el l an w as arr es t ed and M i r andi zed pur s uantt o Mir anda v. Ari z ona , 384 U . S. 436, 86 S. C t . 1602, 16 L . E d. 2d 694 (1966) , he gave a st at ementt o pol i ce a dm i tt i ng th a t h e w a s “ g o in g to tak e the se it e m s a n d m a k e m e th a m p h e tam in e .” H e a d d e d , “T h e fe m a le thatw as w i th m e w as hel pi ng m e gets om e of the i t ems nee ded. . . . I gues s s he w as goi ng t o hel p m e cook. . . . I w as goi ng t o us e the f i ni s h [ s i c] pr oductm ys el f and K at i na w as goi ng t o us e the pr oductal s o. ” A tt r i al , M cC l el l an m oved t o s uppr es s thi s s t at ement , cl ai m i ng that it w a s th e p ro d u c t o f a n ille g a l a rr e s t, b u t th e m o tio n w a s d e n ie d . ¶12 . “T o eff

ectarres tf

or a fel on y, ei ther w i th or w i tho ut a w arr ant, a po l i ce off i cer m ust h a v e re a so n a b le c a u se to b e liev e a fe lo n y h a s b e e n c o m m itt e d , an d re a so n a b le c a u se to b e l i e v e th a t th e p e r s o n p r o p o s e d t o b e a rr e s t e d i s th e o n e w h o c o m m i t t e d i t . ” Jo ne s v. S tat e , 8 4 1 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 , 1 2 5 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 3 ). A s e sta b lish e d a b o v e , O ffic e r P e v e y h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to s t op M cC l el l an and w as gi ven cons entt o per f orm a s ear ch of

hi s car. U pon fi ndi ng the ps eudoephe dr i ne p i l l s, st art erf l ui d ( ether ) , gr anul ardr ai n opener( s odi um hydr oxi de) , l i thi um batt er i es , and i s opr opyl al cohol , O f f i cerPevey had r easonabl e ca us e t o bel i eve that M c C lella n h a d c o m m itt e d th e fe lo n y o f p o ss e ss in g p re c u rso rs f o r m e th a m p h e tam in e . O n ly aft er bei ng arr ested and i nform ed o f hi s Mir anda rig h ts d id M c C lella n m a k e h is

### 7

in c rim in a tin g sta tem e n t. T h u s, th e trial ju d g e d id n o t er r in re fu sin g to su p p re s s h is conf es s i on. 2. W ei ghtof the Evi dence ¶13. W hen r evi ew i ng a cl ai m that the ver di ct w as agai ns t the overw hel m i ng w ei ght of the
e v id e n c e , th e e v id e n c e is w e ig h e d in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ic t. B u sh v. Sta te , 895 S o. 2d 836, 844 ( M i s s . 2005) . T hi s C our tw i l l notor dera new tr i al unl es s i tf i nds that th e v e rd ict “ is s o c o n tra ry to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e th a t to a llo w it t o s t and w oul d s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” Id . ¶1 4. M cC l el l an ar gue s tha tthe St a t e d i d no tp r ov e tha th e h a d a c tua l or cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on of

the ps eudoephe dr i ne orthe methamphet ami ne pr ecur s or s . A l though al l of the
m at er i al s w er e f

ound i n M cC l el l an’ s car , he ar gues t hatt he onl y s ubs t ance w i thi n hi s contr ol
w as the 212 dos age uni t s of ps eudoephedr i ne. T he rubbi ng al cohol and ni nety- s i x dos age uni t s of ps eudoephe dr i ne w er e f ound i n M cG ee’ s l uggage, and the ca ns of s t art erf l ui d and g ra n u lar d rain o p en er w ere fou n d in the b ac k sea t. M cC lel lan a lso p o ints ou t th at on ly M cG ee pur chas ed ps eudoephe dr i ne atthe D ut ch V i l l age s t or e. ¶1 5. T o s uppor ta c on vi c t i on f orp os s es s i on o f

a c on tr ol l e d s ubs t ance , “ther e must be
s uf f i ci entf act s t o w arr anta fi ndi ng t hatdef endantw as aw ar e of

t he pr es ence and cha r act er of the part i cul arsubs t ance and w as i nt ent i onal l y and consc i ous l y i n poss es s i on of i t . ” W a ll
v. Sta te , 718 So. 2d 1107, 1111 ( M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng C u rr y v. Sta te, 249 So. 2d 414, 416 ( M i s s . 1971) ) . M or eover , “ [ i ] ti s qui t e pos s i bl e t o have j oi ntcons truct i ve pos s es s i on. ” W a ll , 718 So. 2d at1111 ( ci t i ng Po well v . S tat e , 3 5 5 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 8 , 1 3 7 9 (M iss. 1 9 7 8 )).

### We c an de ducefrom the rec ord that McCl el lan’sconvi ction oc cur re d outs idethe 3 

### ten-ye ar window of

Mis si ss ippiRuleof Evi denc e 609(b); however, there are no judi ci alor Department of

Correc ti ons rec ordsto s ubstantiatedef ens e c ounse l’ s s tate mentsthat McCl el lan servedonly oneyear of thethree -ye ar

sentence . Thus , thisCourt cannot det er mine whenM cCle ll an wa s rel ea se d from t he c onfinem ent

im pose d for hisburgl ar

y convictio n. Ho wev er, b ecause this aspect of Ru le 6 09 w as n ot arguedbyMcC lellan at trial, and i s not argued on a

ppeal, thi s Cour

t wi llnot addre ssthi s i ss ue. 8 ¶16. M cC l el l an w as the oper at or of the vehi cl e i n w hich t he contr aband w as f ound, and ther e w as nothi ng t o r ebutthe presumpt i on thathe w as i n cons truct i ve pos s es s i on of the cont ent s of

the vehi cl e. T hr ough hi s confess i on , he adm i t t ed thathe w as “aw ar e of the p re se n c e a n d c h a ra c tero f th e p a rticu larsu b sta n c e a n d w a s in ten tio n a lly a n d c o n sc io u sly in pos s es s i on of

i t . ” Id . I n h is sta tem e n t, he a d m itt e d to p o lice th a t M c G e e w a s h e lp in g h im
a c q u ire th e ing red ients for m etha m p h etam ine a n d th at th e tw o of th em i n tend ed to
m anuf actur e and us e the f

i ni s hed pr oduct . A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd thatthe ver dic tw as not agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence . 3. E vi dence of

P r i orC onvi ct i on ¶17. M cC l el l an w as convi ct ed o f burgl ary on July 3, 1996, and r ece i ved a thr ee- year s ent ence . A tthe cl os e of the St at e’ s pr es ent at i on of the evi dence , t he t ri al judge , af t er 3 fin d in g th a t th e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f a d m itt in g M c C lella n ’s p rio r c o n v ictio n o u tw e ig h e d its p rejud ici al effec t un d er P e terso n v . Sta te , 5 1 8 S o . 2 d 6 3 2 (M iss . 1 9 8 7 ), ru led th a t th e S tate c o u ld u se M c C lella n ’s p rio r b u rg lar y c o n v ictio n a s im p e a c h m e n t e v id e n c e , p u rsu a n t to M issi ssipp i R u les of E v iden ce 60 9 (a)(1)(B ), sh o u ld h e c h o o se to test if y o n h is ow n b eh alf. Fol l ow i ng the tr i al co urt ’ s rul i ng, M cC l el l an chos e nott o t es t i f y. M cC l el l an ar gues on

### 9

a p p e a l th a t th e trial c o u rt’s ru lin g w a s a n a b u se o f d isc re tio n th a t re su lted in h is in a b ili ty to p u t o n a d e fe n s e . ¶1 8. W her e a cr i mi na l de f e nd a ntc ho os e s no tt o t e s t i f y a f t e rthe tr i a l c ou r tha s rul e d t hat h is o r h e r p ri o r c o n v ictio n s m a y b e u se d a s im p e a c h m e n t ev id e n c e , the d e fe n d a n t is pr ocedur al l y barr ed f

r om ar gui ng on appea l thats uch a rul i ng pr event ed hi s putt i ng on a def ens e orhad a “ chi l l i ng ef f ect ” on h i s ri gh tto t es t i f y i f he f ai l s t o pr of

f erhi s pr opos ed te s tim o n y . He ide lb e rgv. Sta te , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 3 9 3 , 3 9 5 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 ). “ A t th e v e r y l e a s t, a def endantw i s hi ng t o pr es entthe po i nton appea l , abs enthavi ng t aken the w i tnes s s t and hi m s el f , m us tpr es erve f

orthe r ecor d s ubs t ant i al a nd de t ai l ed evi dence of the t es t i m ony he
w ou l d have gi ven s o thatw e may gauge i t s i m port ance t o hi s def ens e. ” Id . B ecause M cC l el l an f

ai l ed t o pr of

f erhi s t es t i m ony, he i s pr ocedur al l y ba rr ed f r om ar gui ng thatthe tr i al
co u rt ’s ruli n g w h ich w o u ld h av e a ll o w e d th e S tate to im p ea ch h im w ith h is prior b u rglary convi ct i on pr event ed hi s put t i ng on a def ens e. 4. Mer ger ¶1 9. M cC l el l an ar gues t hatt he cha r ge of t he pos s es s i on of

250 dos age uni t s of ps eudoephe dr i ne s houl d m er ge i nt o the of f ens e of pos s es s i on of

pr ecur s or s , and, ther ef

or e, h e s h o u l d n o th a v e b e e n c h a r g e d a n d c o n v i c t e d o f b o th o f f e n s e s , a s t h e y a r o s e f

r o m th e s a me se t o f fa c ts. In o th e r w o rd s, M c C lella n a rg u e s th a t th e se tw o co n v ictio n s a m o u n t t o d o u b le je o p a rd y , o r m u ltip le p u n is h m e n ts fo r t h e s a m e c o n d u c t. ¶20. T hi s C our tfol l ow s t he rul e announc ed i n B lockbur gerv. U nited States , 284 U . S. 299, 5 2 S . C t. 1 8 0 , 7 6 L . E d . 3 0 6 (1 9 3 2 ). Se e a ls o , P o w e ll v. S ta te , 806 So . 2d 10 69 , 10 74 (M i ss. 2 0 0 1 ). “[W ] h ere the s am e a ct or tran sac ti o n co n sti tutes a v iolati o n o f tw o d ist inct statu tory

### 10

p ro v isio n s, th e tes t to b e a p p lied to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e re a re tw o o ffe n se s o r o n ly o n e , is
w hethereac h pr ovi s i on r equi r es pr oof of a f actw hi ch the otherdoes not . ” B lockbur ger , 284 U. S . a t3 0 4 ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) . I n a d d i t i o n , “ [ a ] s i n g l e a c tma y b e a n o f f e n s e a g a i n s ttwo s t atut es ; a nd i f

e ach s t atut e r equi r es pr oof of a n a ddi t i onal f

actw hi ch the otherdoe s not , an acqui t t al orconvi ct i on underei therst atut e does notexemptthe def endantf r om pr os ecut i on and puni s hm entunderthe other . ” I d. ( quot i ng Mo re

y v. Co m m o n w e a lth , 108 M as s . 433 (18 7 1 )). ¶21 . H ow ever, in the presentcase, M cC l el l an w as i nd i ct ed an d tr i ed for tw o separat e act s: ( 1) po s s e s s i on of

pr e c ur s or s , na mel y, l i thi um, s od i um hyd r ox i de , e the r , a nd i s opr opyl alco h o l; an d (2) p o sses sion o f m o re th an 2 5 0 d o sag e u n it s o f pse u d o ep h ed ri n e. M cC lel lan’s cont ent i on i s equi val entt o ar gui ng t hatone cannotbe convi ct ed of unl aw f ul pos s es s i on of
m a riju a n a a n d u n law fu l p o ss e ss io n o f c o c a in e s im p ly b e c a u se th e d e fe n d a n t w a s fo u n d in pos s es s i on of

both s ubs t ance s atthe s ame t i m e. W hi l e i ti s t rue thatps eudoephe dr i ne i s l i s t ed
as a pr ecursor unde rM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 41- 29- 313( 1) ( b) , the pr ecur s or s w hi ch M c C le lla n w a s c o n v ic te d o f u n la w f u ll y p o s s e s s in g d id n o t in c lu d e p s e u d o e p h e d ri n e . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 41- 29- 313( 1) ( b) ( R ev. 2009) . T he St at e di d notus e the ps eudoephe dr i ne fo u n d in M c C le lla n ’s c a r t o s u p p o rtits c h a rg e f o rp o s s e s s io n o f p re c u rs o rs . See Hunt v. S ta te , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 9 9 0 , 9 9 3 ( M i s s . Ct . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o l d i n g th a tb y u s i n g th e s a me p seu d o ep h ed ri n e to su p p o rtco n v ict ion s for po sses sion of pre cu rsors an d p o sses sion o f m o re than 250 dos age uni t s of ps eudoephe dr i ne am ou nt ed t o doubl e j eopar dy) . B ecaus e the p se u d o e p h e d rin e w a s n o t li ste d a s o n e o f th e p re c u rso rs, w e fin d th a t M c C lella n w a s p ro p e rly charged w i th, tri ed for, con vict ed o f, and sent enced fortw o d i st i nct cr i m es.

### 11 CO NC L US I ON ¶2 2 . F o r th e fore g o ing reaso n s, w e fin d n o re v e rsib le e rro r, an d th e c o n v ict ion s are af f i rm ed. ¶ 2 3 . COUNT I : CO NVI CT I ON OF P OS S ES S I ON OF P RE CURS ORS AND S E NT E NCE AS A H AB I T UA L OF F E ND E R O F T HI RT Y ( 3 0 ) YE AR S I N T HE CUS TODY OF T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CORRE CT I ONS AND P AY A F I NE OF $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 , AF F I RMED . CO UN T I I : CO NV I CT I ON OF P OS S E S S I ON O F 250 D O SA G E U N I TS O F PSE U D O EP H ED R I N E A N D SEN TE N C E A S A HA B I T UA L OF F E ND E R O F F I VE ( 5 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I SSISSIPP I 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 A F I N E O F $5, 000, AF F I RMED . S E NT E NC E I N C OU NT I I TO RU N C ON CU RR E NT L Y W I T H T HE S E N T E N C E IM P O S E D IN C O U N T I. W AL L E R, C. J . , CA RL S ON AN D G RA VE S , P . J J . , DI CK I NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR, CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE J J . , CONCUR.