I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - CT - 0 1 8 1 6 - S CT DW AYNE BOYD
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 07/ 2010 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S AM AC S
. RI CH AR DS ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: ALI M UH AM M AD SHA M SI DD EEN AT T ORNE Y 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 : BI LLY L. GO RE D I STR I CT A TTO RN EY : M I CH A EL G U EST 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: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S AF F I RMED I N P AR T AND RE VE RS E D I N P AR T . T HE J UDGMENT OF THE M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT IS A F F IR M E D IN P A R T , V A C A T E D IN PA R T A N D R E M A N D E D - 05/ 30/ 2013 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. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. D w ayne B oyd w as convi ct ed of the sa l e of

m ar i j uana, gre at erthan thi rty gram s but les s th a n o n e k ilo g ra m , w ith in 1 ,5 0 0 fe e t o f a sc h o o l o r w ith in 1 ,0 0 0 fe e t o f th e re a l p ro p e rty of a s chool
. B oyd w as s ent ence d, as a s ubs equentdrug of f ender , t o 120 year s i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof C orr ect i ons (M D O C ), w i th s i xty year s t o s erve and f i ve2

year s of s upervi s ed post
- r el eas e supe rvi s i on. T he C ourtof A ppeal s af f i rm ed hi s convi ct i on
an d sen tenc e . W e a g ree that the tri al co u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing B o y d ’s
m o tio n fo r c o n tin u a n c e to se c u re n e w c o u n se l on the d a y o f trial. B u t w e fin d tha t B o y d d id notr ece i ve t i m el y not i ce thatthe St at e w oul d s eek apos t - convi ct i on amendm entt o the i nd i ctm ent and s uch act i on const i tuted unfai r surpr i se. T heref ore, w e af

fi rm B o y d ’s
c o n v ictio n , b u t w e v a c a te h is s e n ten c e a n d re m a n d th e c a se to th e M a d iso n C o u n ty C irc u it C ourtf orr es ent enci ng. FACTS ¶ 2
. D u rin g p re trial m a tters o n the m o rn in g o f trial, D w a y n e B o y d rele a se d h is p riv a tely
r et ai ned att orney, W es l ey T. E vans , and r eques t ed a c ont i nuance . T he tr i al courtal l ow ed B oy d to r el ease E van s but deni ed B oy d’s or e tenus mot i on f ora c ont i nuance . A l s o dur i ng pr etr i al m att er s , the St at e announc ed thati tw oul d see k t o am end the i ndi ctm enti f i tobt ai ned a convi ct i on. O nce tr i al began, the tr i al courtof f er ed the s ervi ces of

B entl ey C onner , the chi ef publ i c def

enderi n M adi s on C ounty, w ho w as phys i cal l y pr es enti ns i de the courtr oom atthe t i m e. B oyd r ef

us ed C onner ’ s s ervi ces . T he tr i al courtnextconduct ed an e xami nat i on
o f th e d e fe n d a n t p u rs u a n t t o R u le 8 .0 5 o f th e U n ifo rm R u les o f C irc u it an d C o u n ty C o u rt. B o y d w a s d e e m e d b y th e tr ia l c o u rtto h a v e e le c te d to re p re s e n t h im s e lf
. ¶3. A t tr i al , the St at e put on f i ve w i tnes s es , i ncl udi ng L i eut enant T om m y Jones of the M adi s on C ounty Sher i f f’ s D epartm ent ’ s N ar cot i cs D i vi s i on, a conf i dent i al inf

orm ant , and a l ab t echni ci an w i th the M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e L abor at ory. B oyd c ont i nued t o tr i al w i thoutan att orney, w i thoutcal l i ng any w i tnes s es orpr es ent i ng any evi dence
. T he j ury f ound B oydO n M ay 20, 2010, the ca s e w as s ett o be tr i ed on O ct ober5, 2010, a nd the tr i al w as 1 actual l y c onduct ed on O ct ober6, 2010. B oyd’ s r et ai ned att orney ent er ed hi s appea r ance on Sept ember20, 2010. 3 g u ilty o f se lli n g g re a terth a n th irty g ra m s b u t les s th a n o n e k ilo g ra m o f m a riju a n a , a S c h e d u le I contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , w i thi n 1, 500 f eetof a bui l di ng oroutbui l di ng of Cant on A l t ernat i ve School i n M adi s on, M i s s i s s i ppi , orw i thin 1,000 fe etof the r eal pr operty of

C ant on A l t ernat i ve School
. T he tr i al courtdef err ed s ent enci ng unt i l the f ol l ow i ng m orni ng. O n the
m orni ng of

s ent enci ng, the St at e f

i l ed a mot i on t o amend the i ndi ctm entt o char ge B oyd as
a s ubs equentdrug of

f enderunderM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 41- 29- 147, w hi ch w as gr ant ed. T he tr i al courtthen s ent ence d Boyd t o 120 year s i n the cus t ody of the M D O C
. T hats ent ence
w as enhanc ed by M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 41- 29- 142 ( w i thi n 1, 500 f eetof a s chool ) and
en h an ce d ag ain b y M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 4 1 -29 -14 7 (sec o n d o ffen se). ¶4. B oyd appea l ed, and the cas e w as as s i gned t o the C ourt of A ppeal s . O n appea l , B oyd
as s ert ed thatthe deni al of hi s m ot i on f ora cont i nuance depr i ved hi m of a f ai rtr i al and that h is sen tenc e v iolates th e E igh th A m en d m en t t o the U n it ed S tat es C o n sti tuti o n . T h e C o u rt
o f A p p e a ls a ff

irm e d th e c o n v ic ti o n a n d s e n te n c e . B o y d v. Sta te , __ So. 3d __, 2012 W L 1 8 4 7 9 7 8 (M iss . C t. A p p . M a y 2 2 , 2 0 1 2 ). It fo u n d th a t th e trial ju d g e d id n o t ab u se h is d isc re tio n in d e n y in g B o y d ’s m o tio n fo r c o n tin u a n c e b e c a u se B o y d h a d “ a m p le tim e ” to
o b tai n othe r cou n se l. I d. at*4. T he C O A al s o f ound that , al though hi s i ndi ctm entw as 1 amended af

t erhe w as con vic t ed, he r ece i ved not i ce dur i ng pr etr i al pr ocee di ngs and, th e re fo re , h e w a s n o t u n fa ir ly s u rp ri s e d
. I d.4

¶5 . A l though w e a gr e e tha tthe tr i a l c ou rtd i d no tabu s e i t s d i s cr et i on w hen i t deni ed B oyd’ s m ot i on f

orcont i nuance , w e gr ant ed ce rt i or ar i t o di s cus s w hatcons t i tut es s uf f i ci ent
n o tice o f th e S tate ’s in te n t to a m e n d a n in d ictm e n t to re fle c t su b se q u e n t-o ffe n d e r sta tu s in
or dert o provi de the def endant“a f

ai ropportuni ty t o pr es enta def ens e” a nd pr ot ect i on f

r om bei ng “unf

ai r l y s urpr i s ed. ” See U R C C C 7 .0 9
. DI S CU S S I ON ¶6. R ul e 7. 09 pr ovi des thatam end m ents t o i ndi ctm ent s ar e perm i s s i bl e as l ong as the def endanti s notunf

ai r l y surpr i s ed and ha s r eas onabl e not i ce f orpr epar at i on of

a def ens e. R u le 7 .0 9 sta tes : A l l i ndi ctm ent s m ay be a m ended a s t o f orm butnotas t o the subs t ance of the of f ens e char ged. I ndi ctm ent s may al s o be amended t o char ge the def endantas a n h a b itu a l o ffe n d e r o r to e lev a te th e lev e l o f th e o ffe n se w h e re th e o ffe n se is one w hi ch i s s ubj ectt o enhanc ed puni s hm entf ors ubs equentof

f ens es and the a m e n d m e n t is to a s s e r t p ri o r o ff e n s e s ju s tif

y in g s u c h e n h a n c e m e n t ( e .g ., d riv in g u n d e r th e in flu e n c e , M iss . C o d e A n n . § 6 3 -1 1 -3 0 ). A m e n d m e n t sh a ll b e a llo w e d o n ly if th e d e fe n d a n t is a ffo rd e d a fa ir o p p o rtu n ity to p re se n t a def ens e and i s notunf

ai r l y s urpr i s ed. U R C C C 7 .0 9 . W h ile R u le 7 .0 9 “ d o e s n o t sp e a k to th e ti m in g o f th e a m e n d m e n t,” it in stru c ts that“the def

endantm us tbe ‘ af

f or ded a f ai ropportuni ty t o pr es enta def ense’ and ‘notbe unf ai r l y s urpr i s ed. ’ ” G o w d y v. Sta te , 5 6 S o . 3 d 5 4 0 , 5 4 5 ( M i s s . 2 0 1 0 ) ( q u o t i n g URCCC 7. 09)
. I n G ow dy , this C o u rt h e ld th a t itw a s a n u n fa ir su rp rise to a m e n d a n in d ictm e n t to
a lle g e h a b itu a l- o ff

e n d e r s ta tu s a ft e r a c o n v ic tio n . G ow dy , 5 6 S o . 3 d 5 4 0 , 5 4 5 . ¶7. I n G ow dy , the part i es had an on- the- r ecor d di s cus s i on r egar di ng pl ea ne got i at i ons on th e m o rn in g o f t ri a l. G ow dy , 5 6 S o . 3 d a t 5 4 4 . T h e S tate e x p re ss e d th a t itw a s w ill in g to5

re c o m m e n d a s e n te n c e o f o n e y e a ri f G o w d y w o u ld p le a d g u ilty
. I d. A lth o u g h G o w d y ’s att orney s t at ed thath e thoughti tw oul d be i n hi s bes ti nt er es tt o acc eptthe of f er , G ow dy
re je c te d th e d e a l a n d in v o k e d h is rig h t to a ju ry tr ia l. I d. T he day a f

t erG ow dy’ s convi ct i on, the St at e i nf

orm ed the courtthati thad “j us tr ece i ved” i nf orm at i on r egar di ng G ow dy’ s pr i or
o u t-o f-s tate c o n v icti o n s an dw o u ld se ek to a m e n d th e in d ictm e n t to re fle c t G o w d y ’s h a b itu a lo ff e n d e r s ta tu s . I

d. N ear l y tw o m onths a f t erG ow dy’ s c onvi ct i on, the St at e f i l ed i t s m ot i on to a m e n d th e in d ic tm e n t o n th e d a y o n w h ic h th e s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g w a s s c h e d u le d
. I d. T he tr ial co u rtall o w ed the a m en d m en t ov er G o w d y ’s objecti o n an d sen ten c e d h im to li fe im p ri s o n m e n t. Id . a t 5 4 5 . ¶8. T hi s Courtf

ound thatthe pos t - convi ct i on a m endmentt o the i ndi ctm entw as err or and
re m a n d e d th e c a s e fo r r e s e n te n c in g . G ow dy , 5 6 S o . 3 d a t 54 6
. In it s d iscu ssion , this C o u rt
r el i ed on i t s pr i orrul i ng i n A tk in s v. Sta te , 493 So. 2d 1321, 1322 ( M i s s . 1986) , t o f i nd that
a p o st-c o n v ictio n a m e n d m e n t t o an ind ictm e n t t o alle g e h a b itu a l-o ffe n d e r sta tu s is a n u n fa ir
s u rp ri s e . G ow dy , 56 So. 3d at545. T he C ourtnot ed that , i f the St at e w er e al l ow ed t o amend i ndi ctm ent s pos t - convi ct i on t o a l l ege habi tual
- of f enders t atus , ther e w oul d be no i ncent i ve f orthe St at e t o be di l i genti n pr ocur i ng cr i m i nal r ecor ds i n advance of pr es ent i ng char ges b e fo re th e g ra n d ju ry . I d. a t 5 4 6
. ¶9. T hi s C ourt has s ai d that i t i s perm i s s i bl e t o amend the i ndi ctm ent on the dat e of tr i al to refl ec t a d efe n d an t’ s ha b itu al-offen d er st atus , w h en d efe n se c o u n sel i s aw are o f th e S tat e’s i ntent i on s and the defend ant i s f ull y aw are of

the Stat e’s i ntent i on s duri ng plea nego t i at i on s. E lli s v. Sta te , 4 6 9 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 5 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 5 ).6

¶10. D ur i ng pr etr i al pr ocee di ngs on the morni ng of tr i al , the St at e expl ai ned:

. . . R igh t no w M r. B o y d is f ac ing 4 0 y ea rs on the s ale c ase b ec au se it ’s e n h a n c e d b e c a u se it’s w ith in 1 ,5 0 0 fe e t o f a sc h o o l. B utw e w antM r . B oyd t o k no w on the r ecor d thathe’ s al s o a su b se q u e n t d ru g o ffe n d e r fo r a n o u t-o f-s tate co n v ictio n . A n dsh o u ld w e g o to tr i al on thi s , the St at e ats ent enci ng, i f w e obt ai n a convi ct i on, w e’ l l be s eeki ng to d o u b le up to 8 0 y ea rs ba sed o n h e’s a su b seq u en t dru g o ffen d er. B uti f he w ant s t o t ake advant age and w at ch the vi deo and do the pl ea, the St at e, obvi ous l y, has no obj ect i on t o an open pl ea a s t o the i ndi ctm entas i tr e a d s r i g h tn o w. ¶11. T he C ourtof

A ppeal s f

ound thatthi s st at ementconst i tut ed s uf f i ci entnot i ce thatthe St at e w oul d s eek t o s ent ence B oyd as a habi tual of f ender
. W e di s agr ee. T he i s s ue of pr oper not i ce w as addr es s ed by thi s C ourti n Sm ith v. Sta te , 477 So. 2d 191, 196 ( M i s s . 1985)
. T he C ourtf ound that , w her e the def endantdi d nothave not i ce that the S t at e w as s eeki ng a
s e n te n c e o f lif

e im p ri s o n m e n t, su c h a se n te n c e w a s p la in e rr o r a n d u n c o n s titu tio n a l. I d. T he def endantw as i ndi ct ed as a h abitual of f ender ; how ever , the quant i ty of t i m e s oughtw as uncl ear . A l though the def endantdi d n ot r ai s e the i s s ue of hi s w r ongf

ul s ent ence on di r ect appea l , the C ourtdet erm i ned thatw her e, underthe tw o habi tual
- of f enders t atut es , the
s ent ence w oul d be e i thers even year s ( underSec t i on 99- 19- 81) orl i f e i n pr i s on (under Sect i on 9 9- 19
- 83 ) , the c ompa r i s on o f the s e nt e nc e s was “ t oo s i gn i f i c a nta d e pr i va t i on of lib e rt y ” to e n f

o r c e th e p ro c e d u ra l b a r. I d. at195. T he C ourtf ound that , becaus e the i n d i c tme n tc l e a r l y g a v e th e d e f e n d a n tn o t i c e th a tth e S t a t e wa s s e e k i n g a s e v e n - y e a rt e rm,
a n d n o t a lif

e s e n te n c e , h e w a s w ro n g fu lly s e n te n c e d to lif e im p ri s o n m e n t. I

d. a t 1 9 6
.7

¶ 1 2
. In th e in sta n t ca se , B o y d w a s n o t in fo rm e d th ro u g h h is in d ic tm e n t t h a t th e S tate i nt ended t o s eek t o s ent ence hi m as a s ubs equentof f ender
. T he St at e as s ert s thatB oyd w as g iv e n n o tice b e c a u se h e w a s to ld d u rin g p re trial p ro c e e d in g s o n th e m o rn in g o f tria l th a t, i f
a c o n v ict ion w as o b tai n ed , the S tat e w o u ld se ek to se n tenc e h im as a su b seq u en t offen d er. S uch “not i ce” i s nots uf f i ci ent . T he verbal not i ce thatw as gi ven by the St at e di d not
s uf f i ci ent l y i nf

orm B oyd w hathi s s ent ence m i ghtbe i f he w er e f

ound to be a s ubs equent off end er. A l tho ug h the Stat e t old the tr i al cou rtthat i tw ou l d seek “ t o d ou ble up t o 8 0 y ears ” becau se he w as a subsequ ent of fender, B oy d actual l y w as sent enced t o a t otal of 12 0 y ears . T h is dispa ri ty su p p o rt s o u r fi n d ing tha t B o y d d id n o t rece ive ad eq u ate n o ti ce o f th e S tat e’s i nt ent i on t o see k a sent ence enhance m ent . W e f i nd thatadequa t e not i ce i s achi eved thr ough f orm al pl eadi ngs w hi ch i ncl ude the s peci f i c amendm entto be of

f er ed and w hi ch ar e f

i l ed
su ffic ien tly in a d v a n c e o f tria l t o e n su re th a t a d e fe n d a n t w ill h a v e a “ fa ir o p p o rtu n ity to pr es enta def

ens e” a nd w i l l notbe “unf ai r l y s urpr i s ed. ” U R C C C 7. 09. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 3
. W e f

i n d n o e rr o r th a t wo u l d wa rr a n t r e v e r s a l o f Bo y d ’ s c o n v i c t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , we af f i rm i n partthe j udgm ent s of the C ourtof

A ppeal s and t he tr i al court . H ow ever , w e f i nd th a t B o y d d id n o t r ec eive ti m ely o r sufficient n o ti ce o f th e S tat e’s inten t t o am en d h is i n d i c tme n t . T h e r e f

o r e , th i s a me n d me n tr e s u l t e d i n u n f a i rs u rp r i s e . F o rth i s r e a s o n , we
r ever s e i n partthe j udgm ent s of the C ourtof

A ppeal s and tr i al court , vaca t e B oyd’ s s ent ence , a n d re m a n d th e c a se to th e M a d iso n C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt fo r re se n ten c in g c o n sis ten t w ith thi s opi ni on.8

¶14. THE J UDGM EN T OF THE COURT OF AP P EA LS I S AF F I RM ED I N P ART AND REVERSED I N PART. THE J UDG M ENT OF THE M ADI S ON CO UNTY CI RCUI T C OURT I S AF F I RM ED I N P ART , VACATED I N P ART AND REM AND ED. CO NVI CTI ON OF THE SALE OF M ARI J UAN A, A SCHEDULE I CO NTRO LLED S UBS TANCE, W I THI N ONE THOUS AND F I VE HUNDRED F EET O F A B U IL D IN G O R O U T B U IL D IN G O F C A N T O N A L T E R N A T IV E S C H O O L IN M AD I S ON CO UN T Y, M I S S I S S I P P I , OR W I T HI N O NE T HOU S AN D F E E T OF T HE RE AL P RO P E RT Y O F CA NT ON AL T E RN AT I VE S CH OOL , AF F I RMED . T HE S E NT E NC E I S VA CA T E D. T HI S CA S E I S RE M AN DE D T O T HE M AD I S ON CO UN T Y C I RC UI T CO UR T F OR RE S E NT E NC I NG . LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR. RAN DO LPH, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT O NLY W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI TTEN O PI NI ON . DI CK I NSON, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N RESULT W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. P I ER CE , J . , CONCURS I N P ART A N D D I S S E N T S I N P A R T W I T H O U T S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N .