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 5 - KA- 0 2 2 6 1 - S CT C H R ISTO P H ER JO H N S O N a/k/ a C H R IS J OHNS ON
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 29/ 2005 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LAM AR P I CKARD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: COP I AH COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: M
. A. BAS S , J R. 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 BY : DE S HUN T E RR E L L M AR T I N 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 D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 03/ 01/ 2007 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 SM I T H , C . J. , C A R L SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT:

STA TE M EN T O F T H E C A SE ¶1. O n N ovember 1, 2005, C hr i s t opher J ohns on ( “Johnson”) w as i ndi ct ed by a C opi ah C ounty G r and J ury f

orthe s al e of

coca i ne pur s uantt o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 41- 29- 139 ( R ev. 2005)
. J ohns on ent er ed a pl ea of notgui l ty. ¶2. O n N ovember27, 2005, J ohns on w as off er ed a pl ea agr eementf

ora s ent ence of ei ght y e a rs, w ith tw o y e a rs s u sp e n d e d a n d six y e a rs to se rv e . Jo h n so n reje c ted this p lea a g re e m e n t.

### 2

O n the day of

tr i al , John s on w as of

f er ed a di f

f er entpl ea a gr eementf

ora s ent ence of

t en yea r s , wi th s i x ye a r s s us pe nd e d a nd o nl y f ou ry e a r s t o s e r ve . J oh ns on r e j e c t e d the s econd pl ea of f er . Johns on’ s si gnatur e acknow l edged thathe under s t ood thatw hen he r ej ect ed the p lea a g re e m e n ts , h e w o u ld b e tried , an d if c o n v icte d , h e c o u ld b e se n ten c e d to se rv e th irty years and recei ve a fi ne o f up t o o ne m i l l i on do l l ars . ¶3. J ohns on e xer ci s ed hi s r i ght t o a j ury tr i al
. A f t er the St at e r es t ed, J ohns on moved f or a di r ect ed ver di ct , ar gui ng thatthe St at e f ai l ed t o m ake a pr i m a f

aci e cas e. T hi s m ot i on w as deni ed. U pon compl et i on of t r i al , Johns on w as found gui l ty of the sa l e of coca i ne. T he tr i al j udge or der ed a pr e- s ent enci ng i nves t i gat i on bef or e s ent enci ng Johns on. A f t erthe r es ul t s of thi s i nves t i gat i on w er e pr es ent ed, the courts ent ence d J ohns on t o thi r ty year s , w i th ei ght een years t o serve, tw el ve y ears suspend ed, w i th p ost -r el ease su p ervi si on forfi ve y ears . Subse quentt o s ent enci ng, J ohns on f i l ed a M ot i on f

orN ew T r i al , w hi ch w as deni ed by the tr i al judge. Subse quent l y, J ohns on f i l ed thi s appea l , and J ohns on pr es ent s the f ol l ow i ng i ssues: 1 ) T h e trial c o u rt e rre d in n o t g ra n tin g J o h n so n ’s M o tio n fo r D ire c ted V e rd ict, as the ver di ctw as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence and w as a r es ul tof

bi as , pr ej udi ce a nd pas s i on. 2 ) T h at a se n tenc e o f th irty y ea rs, e igh teen y ea rs t o serv e, w ith tw elve y ea rs su sp en d ed , w ith fi v e y ea rs of po st- release sup erv isi o n , i s t an tam o u n t to a lif e s e n te n c e . S TATEM ENT OF THE FACTS ¶4. T he M i s s i s s i ppi B ur eau of N ar cot i cs ( “M B N ”) w as conduct i ng a drug i nves t i gat i on

### Agent 1 and Age nt 2, ar e us ed f or the unde rc over

Mis si ss ippiBure au of 1 

### Narco tics Ag ents. 3 i n Copi ah C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , w i th the us e of a n unde r covera gent s , A gent1, a nd a 1 conf i dent i al inf

or m ant , ( “C I ”)
. T he age nti n char ge of the i nves t i gat i on, A gent 2 , had appr oxi m at el y tw enty year s of exper i ence . ¶5. T he C I w as a C od ed C on fi dent i al I nf or m ant , w hi ch m eant he w as not as s i s t i ng t he M B N i n o rdert o g ai n a redu ced sen t ence for a cr i m e, bu trather w as pai d for hi s services
. D uri ng hi s t es t i m ony, the C I a dm i t t ed an adj udi cat i on of a mi s demeanorw hen he w as a
m i no r, w hich i nv olved t he thef tof appa rel and sport i ng go od s. ¶6. A ccor di ng t o A gent2' s t es t i m ony, the C I kn ew p eop l e in t he com m uni ty and w as
se rv in g b e c a u se h e “w a s ju st a g o o d citize n tha t w a n t[ed ] to d o [his ] p a rt, w a n t to c o m e in
a n d d o w h a t [h e ] ca n .” T h e C I w a s p a id e a c h tim e h e p e rfo rm e d se rv ice s, a lth o u g h A g e n t 2 tes tified th a t th e C I o rig in a lly w a s s u rp rise d to lea rn h e w o u ld b e c o m p e n sa ted fo r h is
se rv ice s. H e w a s p a id d iffe rin g a m o u n ts d e p e n d in g o n th e ty p e o f d ru g s a n d p a rticip a n ts i nvol ved. A gent2 t es t i f

i ed he ha d no r eas on t o bel i eve the C I neede d the m oney, as he ow ned a veh i cl e and a bu si ness. ¶ 7
. T h e C I in fo rm e d th e M B N h e c o u ld in tro d u c e th e m to Jo h n so n
– th a t Jo h n so n w o u ld
s el l the C I cr ack c ocai ne. O n A pr i l 27, 2005, an i nves t i gat i on i nvol vi ng J ohns on w as
c o n d u c t e d
. T h e CI wa s wi r e d wi th a d e v i c e t o r e c o r d th e tr a n s a c t i o n a n d t o a l l o w a survei l l ance team t o li st en i n on the t ransact i on . T he M B N gave t he C I m on ey t o p urchase the coc ai ne. ¶8. T her e i s a dis cr epanc y i n t es t i m ony as t o w hethert he C I cal l ed Johns on or J ohns on

### 4

cal l ed the C I
. N onethel es s , a t el ephone conver s at i on t ook pl ace be tw een the C I and J ohns on. T he C I and Joh nson arr ang ed to m eeton A dam s Str eetE xtensi on i n C ryst al S pri ng s, M i s s i s s i ppi
. A gent2 m etw i th the C I a nd A gent1. A gent2 per f or m ed a s t andar d “pr e- buy” p roc ed u re w h ere in he th o rou g h ly sea rch ed th e C I’s p erso n an d ve h icl e. T h is w as to en su re the i nt egr i ty of

the t ransact i on and t o m ake s ur e the conf i dent i al i nf

or m anthad no money,
we a p o n s , n a r c o t i c s o ro th e rc o n tr a b a n d p r i o rt o th e tr a n s a c t i o n wi th th e s u s p e c t . Th e CI d r o v e h i s v e h i c l e wi th Ag e n t1 i n th e p a s s e n g e rs e a tt o th e d e s i g n a t e d l o c a t i o n . Th e CI t es t i f i ed J ohns on w al ked up and c l i m bed i nt o the bac k s eatof hi s ve hi cl e. A gent1 t es t i f i ed
s he had the i m pr es s i on thatJ ohns on a nd the C I al r eady kne w eac h other
. J ohns on pr oduced t he narcot i cs and the C I i ns pect ed them. U pon i ns pect i on, the C I t ol d J ohns on thes e drugs

“ w e re n o t th e re a l d e a l” a n d to ld J o h n s o n to c a ll h im w h e n h e c o u ld g e t “ re a l c ra c k c o c a in e .” A gen t2 tes t i fi ed the C I had recei ved trai ning t o ident i fy narcot i cs. ¶9
. A gent1 an d the CI r e turne d t o the i r“ pr e - bu y” l oc a t i on , wher e the C I r ece i ved a tele p h o n e c a ll fro m Jo h n so n sta tin g h e n o w h a d “ re a l cra c k co c a in e .” T h e C I a n d h is v e h icle
w er e s ear ched a gai n us i ng the s ame pr e- buy pr ocedur e, and he w as agai n out f i t t ed w i th a
r ecor di ng devi ce. ¶10. A gent1and the C I r eturned t o the s ame buy l ocat i on. J ohns on ent er ed the vehi cl e and
sa t i n the b a c k se a t. Jo h n so n p ro d u c e d a Z ip lo c b a g c o n tain in g c ra c k c o c a in e . T h e C I p a id J ohns on $200 f

ori t , w i th A gent1w i tnes s i ng the tr ans act i on. A gent1 t es t i f i ed thatJ ohns on
s t ood outi n herm i nd beca us e he w as s o young and bec aus e thi s w as herf i r s tcr ack c ocai ne b u y , a s s h e p re v io u s ly w a s a s s ig n e d to c ry s ta l m e th a m p h e ta m in e b u y s . ¶11. A l though t he C I t es t i f i ed t he t r ans act i on t ook onl y abouta m i nut e, t he C I r ecogni zed

### 5

J ohns on as the s el l er , as he had know n J ohns on and hi s f ami l y f oryear s . H e s t at ed
u n e q u iv o c a lly “ th e re w a s n o d o u b t in h is m in d ” J o h n s o n w a s th e s e lle r. ¶ 1 2
. A fte r th e tra n sa c tio n , A g e n t 1 a n d th e C I id e n tified Jo h n so n fro m a six -p e rso n p h o to l i neup. A l though A gent2 w as noti n the ca rand di d notphys i cal l y s ee the pur chas e t ake pl ace , he l i s t ened t o the tr ans act i on f r om the w i r e pl aced on the C I
. A n audi o of t he tr ans act i on w as i ntr oduced i nt o e vi dence f orthe j ury’ s cons i der at i on. A f t erthe j ury r etur ned
a ver di ctof

gui l ty agai ns tJ ohns on, the j ury w as pol l ed, and al l tw el ve j ur or s conf i r m ed the
ver di ctof

gui l ty. ¶ 1 3
. A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , th e S tate p re se n ted e v id e n c e th a t Jo h n so n h a d p re v io u sly b e e n c o n v icte d o f th e s a le o f c o c a in e , a n d a sk e d th a t Jo h n so n ’s s e n ten c e b e e n h a n c e d to six ty y ea rs i n stead o f th irty. Joh n so n co u n tered that th e fi rstsale too k p lace w h en h e w as a m ino r,
a sk in g th a t th e c o u rt c o n sid e r h is a g e . T h e trial c o u rt se n ten c e d Jo h n so n to th irty y e a rs in pr i s on, w i th tw el ve yea r s s us pended, and f i ve yea r s of

pos t - r el eas e s upervi s i on. A N A L Y S IS I . W het her t he t ri al court err ed i n not gr ant i ng John s on’ s M ot i on f or D i rec t ed V erdi ct . I n cons i der i ng w hetherthe evi dence i s s uf f i ci entt o s us t ai n a convi ct i on i n the f ace of a m ot i on forj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct , th e c ri ti ca l i n q u iry i s w hetherthe evi dence s how s beyond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatacc us ed comm i t t ed the act char ged and thathe di d s o unders uch ci r cumst ance s that e v e ry e le m e n t o f th e o ff e n s e e x is te d
. B u sh v. S ta te , 89 5 S o. 2d 83 6, 84 3 (M i ss. 2005)
. T hi s i nqui ry does no trequi r e a c our tt o as k i t s el f w hetheri tbel i eves th a t th e e v id e n c e a t th e trial e sta b lish e d g u iltb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. I ns t ead, the rel evan tques t i on i s w hether , af t ervi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vo r a bl e t o the pr os e c ut i on , a ny r a t i on a l tr i e rof f a c tc ou l d h a ve fo u n d th e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f t h e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. I d. If ther e i s s uf

f i ci entevi dence t o s uppor ta gui l ty ver di ct , the m ot i on f ora di r ect ed

### 6

v e rd ic t m u s t b e o v e rr u le d
. Ma y v. S ta te , 4 6 0 S o . 2 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). Min g o v. S ta te, 2 0 0 6 M is s . L E X IS 6 7 9 , * 3 0 (2 0 0 6 ). ¶1 4. I n ar gui ng I s s ue I , J oh ns on o f f e r s tw o a r gu ment s . J oh ns on a s s er t s t he w i t nes s es tes tify in g ag a in st h im w e re n o t cr e d ib le a n d th a t, w ith o u t th e ir tes tim o n y , the S tate fa iled to pr es enta pr i m a f

aci e cas e. H e unper s uas i vel y ar gues t hatt he St at e f ai l ed t o prove beyond a
re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t h e w a s th e p e rso n w h o so ld th e c o c a in e to th e C I a n d A g e n t. T h ere fore , h e b eli ev es h is M o ti o n for D ir ec ted V erd ictsh o u ld h av e b ee n g ran ted o r a p e re m p to ry in s tru c tio n s h o u ld h a v e b e e n g iv e n to th e ju ry . ¶15. J ohns on f

ur theras s ert s thatA gent1w as notcr edi bl e beca us e she w as a new empl oyee of t he M B N , havi ng been e m pl oyed f orappr oxi m at el y one mont h pr i ort o the s al e, and had notc om pl et ed tr ai ni ng a tthe L aw Enf or cementA cade m y. T he evi dence al s o s how s s he had
a b a c h e l o r ’ s d e g r e e i n Cr i mi n a l J u s t i c e a n d b e e n th r o u g h tr a i n i n g b y o f f i c e r s a tth e M BN
. ¶16. A gent1 had been on f i ve pr evi ous “drug buy” tr ans act i ons . A gent1 obs erved J ohns on
on tw o s epar at e occ as i ons the s ame day. She coul d i dent i f y w hatcl othi ng he w as w ear i ng and com m ent ed on hi s yout h. A gent1 furthers t at ed thi s w as herf i r s tbuy of

cr ack c ocai ne and herf i r s tbuy i n Copi ah C ounty. Ther ef or e, the tr ans act i on s t ood outi n herm i nd. Fi nal l y, A gent1 s el ect ed J ohns on’ s phot o outof a s i x- per s on l i neup. ¶17. J ohns on al s o ar gues t hatt he C I l acke d cr edi bi l i ty and com pet ency t o t es t i f y. J ohns on
ar gues t he C I w as m ot i vat ed t o t es t i f y agai ns tJohns on by f

r eedom f r om cr i m i nal char ges and
m o n e y . N o e v id e n c e w a s p re s e n te d to th e c o u rtto s u p p o rt th is a s s e rt io n . ¶18. A gent 2 t es t i f

i ed that , other than the of f ens e the C I c om m i t t ed as a youth, he had no
cr i mi na l h i s t ory. Agen t2 s t a t e d the CI was a Code d Conf i de nt i a l I nf

ormanta nd was not

### 7

a c tin g a s a n in fo rm a n t in o rd e r t o g a in a re d u c tio n o r f re e d o m fr o m c ri m in a l c h a rg e s . ¶19. A gent 2 f

ur ther t es t i f

i ed that the C I w as empl oyed by hi s ow n bus i nes s , and i n A gent 2 ’s op in io n , th e C I w as n o t acti n g as a co n fi d en ti al i n form an t f o r th e p u rpo se o f m o n etary gai n. O therthan hi s as s ert i on the C I w as act i ng f orm oney, John son provided no f act s or evi dent i ary s uppor tf

orthe courtt o con si der thatthe C I w as act i ng as an i nf or m antf or
m o n e ta ry g a in
. ¶20. A gent2 tes t i fi ed t he C I “w as a good C I , ” “one of the bett er ” i nf

or m ant s he had
w or ked w i th. T he C I t es t i f i ed he ha d nothi ng per s onal agai ns tJ ohns on and thati tw as not
eas y f orhi m t o t es t i f

y. ¶21. T he tr i al j udge i s the gat ekee per of evi dence pr es ent ed t o a j ury. T he t est i m ony of A gent1 and thatof

the C I w as a dm i s s i bl e pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 602, as th e y h a d p e rs o n a l k n o w le d g e o f t h e m a tte rs to w h ic h th e y te s tif ie d
. See M .R .E . 6 0 2 ; see al so M
. R
. E
. 104(e )
. Fur therm or e, t he cr edi bi l i ty of thes e w i tnes s es coul d have be en att acke d at tr i al as “[ t ] he credibi l i ty of a w i tnes s m ay be a t t acke d by any party. . . . ” M
. R
. E
. 607. T he j ur or s w er e i ns truct ed, “The cour thas rul ed on the admi s s i bi l i t y of the evi dence ; but , you, the J ury, a r e the s ol e j udges of the f act s . A s s ol e j udges of

the f act s , yourexcl us i ve pr ovi nce i s t o det erm i ne w hatw ei ghtand cr edi bi l i ty w i l l be as s i gned the t es t i m ony and s uppor t i ng evidence o f ea ch w i tness. ” T he judge and j ury ob viousl y acce pted the credibi l i ty o f these
w itn e s s e s , a n d th is C o u rt fi n d s n o le g a l b a s is to re v e rs e th e ird e c is io n . F u rt h e rm o re , Shoul d the f

act s and i nf

er ence s cons i der ed i n a cha l l enge t o the s uf f i ci ency of the ev i den ce ‘point in fav or of the d efendan ton any el em ent of the o ff ense w i th s uf f i ci entf or ce thatr eas onabl e m en coul d nothave f ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe def endantw as gui l ty, ’ the pr operr emedy i s f orthe a p p e lla te c o u rt to re v e rs e a n d re n d e r.

### 8

Mile y v. S ta te, 9 3 5 S o . 2 d 9 9 8 , 1 0 0 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶ 2 2
. Af

t e rv i e wi n g th e t a p e o f th e t r a n s a c t i o n , a n d he a r i n g th e t e s t i mo n y o f two M BN agent s , a drug anal ys tf

r om the M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e Labor at ory, and the C I , eac h j ur orr etur ned
a ver di ctof

gui l ty. T he low er cou rtf ound none of

the f act s ori nf

er ence s s ugges t ed by Jo h n so n o n a n y e lem e n t o f th e o ffe n se w a s s u c h th a t ju ro rs c o u ld n o t h a v e fo u n d h im g u ilty b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. A c c o rd in g ly , th is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. I I . W het her a s ent ence of t hi rt y years , ei ght een years t o s erve , t w el ve years s uspended, w i t h f i ve year s of

post - rel eas e s upervi s i on am ounts t o a l i f

e s ent ence. A s a gene r al rul e, w hen s ent ences are w i thi n the l i m i t s of the s t atut e, the im p o sit ion of suc h sen tenc es is w ith in th e so u n d discreti o n of th e tr ial co u rt and thi s C our tw i l l notre ver s e t hem.
. . . L i kew i s e, w e have hel d thatpr ovi di ng puni shm entf

orcr i m e i s a f

unct i on of

the l egi s l atur e, and, unl es s the p u n ish m e n t sp e c ified b y sta tu te c o n stitu tes c ru e l an d u n u su a l trea tm e n t, i t w ill n o t b e d is tu rb e d b y th e ju d ic ia ry . P re sle y v. S ta te , 474 So
. 2d 61 2, 620 (M i ss. 1985)
. W e r e vi e w s e nt e nc e s i n l i gh tof the f a c t or s a r t i c ul a t e d b y the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our ti n S o lem v. H e lm , 4 6 3 U. S. 2 7 7 , 1 0 3 S. Ct
. 3 0 0 1 , 7 7 L. E d. 2d 637 ( 1983) , onl y w hen a thr es hol d compar i s on of the cr i m e comm i t t ed to th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d le a d s to a n in fe re n c e o f " g ro s s d is p ro p o rt io n a lity ." N ich o ls v . S ta te , 826 So. 2d 1288, 1290 ( M i s s . 2002)
. G eneral l y, s ent ence s thatdo notexce ed the maxi m um t erm all ow ed by s t atut e w i l l notbe c o n sid e re d g ro ss ly d isp ro p o rtio n a te a n d w ill n o t b e d istu rb e d o n a p p e a l. Flem in gv. S ta te , 6 0 4 S o . 2 d 2 8 0 , 3 0 2 -03 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). Min g o , 2006 M i s s . L E X I S at*32- 33. ¶23. J ohns on ass ert s hi s ri ght s under A rt i cl e 3, sec t i ons 14, 26 and 28 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on a nd u nd e rthe 5 th, 6 th, 8 th a nd 1 4th A mend ment s t o the Uni t e d St at es C o n stitu tio n h a v e b e e n v io late d b y h is s e n ten c e . Jo h n so n a rg u e s th a t th e “ e ig h tee n y e a rs to
se rv e ” p ro v isio n o f h is s e n ten c e is ta n tam o u n t to a life s e n ten c e , co n sid e rin g h e is o n ly tw enty year s of

age. J ohns on f

ur therar gues the s ent ence s ubj ect s hi m t o “over cr ow di ng,

### 9

uns ani t ary condi t i ons and m akes hi m a vi ct i m of phys i cal cr i m es , ” and t her ef or e, i s cruel and in h u m a n [e ]. ¶24. J ohns on w as convi ct ed f orthe sa l e of

coca i ne underM i s s . C ode A nn. § 41- 29- 139 and
r ece i ved the m axi m um s ent ence of thi r ty year s , al bei ttw el ve yea r s w er e s us pended, and the tr i al j udge di d notfol l ow t he St at e’ s re comm endat i on t o enhanc e the s ent ence an addi t i onal thi r ty year s . “W e have neverf ound a maxi m um penal ty i n a drug cas e – e ven i f the s ent ence s
w ere t o run co nsecuti vely – t o be cruel and un usual pun i shm ent. " B r ax to n v. S ta te, 797 So. 2d 826, 829 ( M i s s. 20 00 ) ( qu ot i ng He rr in gv. S ta te , 6 9 1 S o . 2 d 9 4 8 , 9 5 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )). Fur therm or e, “[ i ] ti s the pr er ogat i ve of the Legi s l atur e t o det erm i ne the appr opr i at e s ent ence fo r c ri m e s ” a n d J o h n s o n ’s s e n te n c e c o m e s w ith in th e p u rv ie w o f t h e s ta tu te . Her r ing v. State, 6 9 1 S o . 2 d 9 4 8 , 9 5 0 -5 1 (M is s . 1 9 9 7 ). ¶25. T he sent ence i m pos ed by t he t r i al cour tw as w i thi n t he st atut ory l i m i t at i on and w as
w ith in th e so u n d d iscreti o n o f th e lea rne d tr ial jud g e. F u rth er, th is C o u rth as p rev iou sly det erm i ned i ti s the L egi s l atur e’ s f unct i on t o de t erm i ne puni s hm enta nd, “ [ w ] e have s ai d t hat thi r ty year s i s notcruel and unus ual puni s hm entf ordrug char ges , ” i.e ., notvi ol at i ve of the U n ite d S ta te s o r M is s is s ip p i C o n s ti tu tio n . B e ll v . S ta te, 79 7 S o. 2d 94 5, 95 0-51 (M i ss. 2 0 0 1 ); L o c k

y e rv. A n dr a de, 5 3 8 U
. S
. 63 , 12 3 S
. C t. 11 6 6 , 15 5 L
. E d
. 2 d 1 4 4 (2 0 0 3 ). A c c o rd in g ly , th is is s u e b ro u g h t b y J o h n s o n h a s n o m e ri t. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 6
. T h e ju d g m e n t o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt is a ff ir m e d
. ¶ 2 7
. CO NVI CTI ON O F THE SALE OF C OC AI NE A ND S ENTENCE OF THI RTY ( 3 0 ) YE ARS , W I TH E I GHTE EN ( 1 8 ) YE ARS TO S ER VE , TW EL VE ( 1 2 ) YE ARS SU SPE N D ED , W I TH PO ST- R EL EA SE SU PE R V I SI O N F O R FI V E ( 5) Y EA R S,

### 10

W I TH CONDI TI ONS , I N THE CUS TODY OF THE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CO RRECTI ON S , AFF I RM ED
. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND COB B, P . J J . , DI AZ , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON, AND D I C K I N S O N , J J ., C O N C U R . G R A V E S , J ., C O N C U R S I N R E S U L T O N L Y .