IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2017-KA-00368-COA STEVEN VINCENT ANDERSON A/K/A STEVEN V. ANDERSON A/K/A STEVEN ANDERSON APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/19/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DAL W ILLIAMSON COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: BENJAMIN A. SUBER GEORGE T. HOLMES MOLLIE M. McMILLAN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: KATY TAYLOR GERBER DISTRICT ATTORNEY: ANTHONY J. BUCKLEY NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 10/30/2018 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE IRVING, P.J., CARLTON AND GREENLEE, JJ. GREENLEE, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Steven Anderson c hallenges his convictions f or d riving under the inf

lue n c e ( D U I ) a

nd p o s s e s s i o n of m etham

phetam ine. The Jones C ounty Circuit Court sentenced him as a hab i t u a l of f ender t o s e rve eight y ears in the custody of the Mississippi Departm ent of Corrections, without eligibility f

or parole or probation, ordering the sentence to run consecutively t o a prior sentence. The court also ordered him to p ay a $25,000 f ine and s erve f

orty -eight hours in the c ustody of the Jones County Adult Detention Center. Anderson m oved f or a j udgm entnotwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, a new trial. The court denied his

m otion, and Anderson appeals. ¶2. He alleges that: ( 1) h is eight-y e ar sentence is disprop o rt i o n a t e t o th e c r i me o f

m etham phetam ine possession; and (2) the verdicts were against the o verwhelm ing weight of the evidence. W e af

f irm the circuit court’s judgm ent. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW ¶3. Two vehicles collided on a country road near several hom es. In one w as the lif eless body of eightee n - y e a r-old Isaac Holloway

. From the other em erged Steven Anderson. N e ighbors rushed to the wreck and watched as Anderson threw unknown objec t s i n t o th e woods, searched in his car, and m um bled about looking f

or his p hone charger and insurance papers. ¶4. One n eighbor—who was a param edic—seeking to r ender aid, approached Anderson

a s he was ram

bling around in his vehicle. She asked him to s tep o ut of th e v e h i c l e . H e ref used, but the p aram edic’s f urther insistence caused Anderson t o becom e irate. He elbowed the param edic in the jaw. Af terward, she f

orced him to the ground f or her own saf

ety

. ¶5. An am

bulance took Anderson to the hospital. There, a phy sician tested his blood af ter believing that Anderson was i ntoxicated because of his d em eanor a n d a c t i o ns. T he blood tested posi t i ve f

or m etham

phetam ine. A t the hospital, police questioned Anderson, and noted that his pupils were dilated and his m outh was f oam ing. ¶6. At the wreck-site, the p o l i c e u s ed a police-dog to search the w oods f or the objects thrown away f

rom his vehicle. A s unglasses case that contained several clear em pty bags, a

2bag that contained a substance that looked like m etham phetam ine, and a digital scale were f ound within thirty y ards of the roadway

. A lso located in that area was an unopened can of i c ed t ea with a hidden com partm ent. All the recovered i tem s were sent to a f o r e n s i c laboratory

. ¶7. Forensic scientists located a f ingerprint on the digital scale and tested the s ubstance in the bag. The print m atched Anderson’s right thum b print, and the substance was c onf irm ed as 5.371 gram s of

m etham phetam ine. ¶8. Anderson was indicted and pleaded not guilty to Count I aggravated DUI, and Count II possession of m etham

phetam i ne with intent to distribute. A t trial, the jury f o und him not guilty a s to Counts I and II as charged. But the jury did f i nd him guilty of the lesser-included of f enses of DUI and possession of m etham phetam ine. T he J o n e s County Circuit Court sentenced him as a habitual of f e nder to serve eight y ears i n the custody of the Mississippi Departm ent of Corrections with the sentence to run consecutively t o a p rior sentence; to pay

a $25,000 f

ine; and t o s e r

ve f orty -eight hours i n the custody of the Jones C ounty Adult Detention Center. ¶9. Anderson m oved f o r a JNOV or, in the alternative, a new trial. The court denied his

m otion, and he now a

ppeals. An d e r s o n c h a llenges h is eight-y ear sentence as disproportionate

a n d b o t h verdicts as b eing against the overwhelm ing weight of the evidence. H e does n ot challenge the appropriateness of the convictions of

lesser-included of

f enses. DISCUSSION I. Is t he eight-y ear sentence disproportionate to the crim e of m etham p hetam ine possession?

3¶10. Anderson c ontends that the eight-y ear s entence is unduly harsh and constitutes cruel

and unusual punishm ent. But, “ [ i ] n o r d er f o r an error related to im

proper sentencing t o be preserved f

or ap p e a l , th e re m

ust be an objection m a d e at trial.” Hobgood v. State , 926 So. 2d 847, 857 (¶34) (Miss. 2006). Anderson did not o bject at trial; theref ore, he is procedurally barred f rom m aking this claim

. ¶11. Notwithst an d i n g th e p r o c e du r a l b a r, this ar gum ent i s without m erit. Anderson’s conviction f

or m etham

phetam ine pos s e s s i o n f

ell under section 41-29-139(c)(1)(C) (Rev. 2 0 1 3 ) o f t he Mississippi Code, which im poses “im prisonm ent f

or not m ore than eight (8 ) y ears . . . .” Anderson’s sentence is within those statutory lim its. “ [ A ] s e ntence that does not

e x c e e d the m axim

um term allowed by statute will not b e disturbed on appeal.” W ils o n v . State , 106 So. 3d 853, 858 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). ¶12. “However, where a s e ntence is ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crim e comm itted, the sentence is subject to attack o n the grounds that it v iolates the Eighth Am endm ent prohibition of c ru e l and unusual punishm ent.” Portis v. State , 245 S o. 3d 457, 474 (¶44) (Miss. 2018) (quoting Tate v . State , 9 12 So. 2d 919, 933 (Miss. 2 005)). And while Anderson asserts that this Court m

ust a pp l y Solem ’s disproportionality review, 1 S olem applies “only when a threshold com

parison of the crim e comm itted to the sentence i m posed leads t o an inf

erence of ‘gross d isproportionality .’” Parisi v. State , 119 S o. 3 d 1061, 1067 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting N

ichols v. State , 826 So.2d 1288, 1290 (¶12) ( Miss. 2 002)). F urtherm ore, in prior cases, this Court f

ound n o inf

erence when the sentence f ell within the statutory lim its.

1 S o lem v. H elm , 4 6 3 U .S . 2 7 7 (1 9 8 3 ). 4E.g. , Chester v . State , 201 S o. 3d 506, 509 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016), cert. denied, 203 So.

3d 1132 (Miss. 2016). Because Anderson’s sentence is within those lim its, it i s not grossly disproportionate. This argum ent is without m erit. II. W e r e t h e verdicts against t he overw h elm ing w eight of t he evidence? ¶13. A n d e r s on argues that the verdicts were against the overwhelm ing w e i g h t o f th e evidence and that the circuit court erred in denying his m otion f or a new trial. ¶14. W e use an abu s e - o f

- d iscretion standard when reviewing a circuit court’s ref usal to grant a new trial. M

cLaughlin v. N. Drew Freight Inc. , 2 49 So. 3d 1081, 1083 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). “In determ ining whether a verdict i s a gainst the overwhelm i ng weight of the evidence, this Court m

ust view all e v i d e n c e in the light m ost consistent with the jury verdict.” I

d. (citing Motorola Commc’ns & Elecs. Inc. v. W i lkerson , 555 So. 2 d 713, 723 (Miss. 1989)). F urtherm ore, we “disturb the verdict o nly when i t is so contrary to the

o v e rwhelm ing weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction a n unconscionable injustice.” Little v. State , 233 So. 3d 288, 289 (¶1) (Miss. 2017). ¶15. Anderson a s s e rt s th a t h i s v e r d i c ts are against the overwhelm i ng w eight of the evidence because “ th e r e w a s v e ry little evidence to support the verdict of DUI and sim ple possession.” T o bolster this argum ent, he alleges that the accident scene was not adequately secured, other evidence was n o t collected, and there was plenty of tim e f or the scale with his thum bprint to have been planted by som e ill-wishing “ f o rm e r associate.” B ut, several police of f icers indep e n d e n t l y testif ied that the scene was s ecure and that, while walking the area later that evening, no a dditional evidence on the r oadway could be f o und. Furtherm ore,
5several witnesses, including the on-scene p aram edic, hospital phy sician, and the poli ce

of f icers testif

ied that Anderson a cted and a ppeared i ntoxicated. Anderson’s blood tested positive f or m etham

phetam ine. Several witnesses t estif ied that Anderson had thrown objects into the woods, where a scale with his thum bprint along with a bag containing a substance later t ested and shown to be m etham phetam i ne were f

ound within throwing distance of the wreck. ¶16. The j ury heard all this testim ony and j u d g e d e a c h w i tn e s s ’ s credibility

. And the jury —within its discretion—determ ined that Anderson was guilty of DUI and possession of

m etham p h e t a mi n e . Viewed in the light m o st f avorable to the v erdicts, we cannot f ind that they were contrary to the o verwhelm ing weight of the evidence or that allowing them to stand would sanction an unconscionable justice. This issue is without m erit. CONCLUSION ¶17. Theref

ore, we f i nd that Anderson is procedurally barred f rom asserting that his eighty ear sentence is d i s p roportionate to the crim e of m etham phetam ine possession, that this argum ent also lacks m erit, and that the verdicts were not against the overwhelm ing weight of the evidence. ¶18. AFFIRMED. LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., CARLTON, F A IR, WILSON, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR. BARNES, J., CONCURS I N PART AND IN THE RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.

6