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 7 - KA- 0 0 4 2 0 - S CT J U R EK A B R O WN v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 07/ 2003 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . R . I. P R IC H A R D , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ARI ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: LESL I E S. LEE 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 I RD RE M c CR OR Y DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : HA LDO N J . KI TTRELL NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY M AN DA TE I SS UED : CO NV I CTI ON OF SALE O F CON TRO LLED S UB S T ANC E AF F I RMED ; S E NT E NC E OF T HI RT Y YE AR S I N T HE CU S T ODY OF T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CTI ONS AF F I RM ED; S ENT ENCE ENHANCEM ENT OF T HI RTY YEARS V A C A T E D A N D R E M A N D E D - 11/ 20/ 2008. EN BA NC. DI AZ , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s i s a ca s e i nvol vi ng a convi ct i on for t he sal e of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance and an ens ui ng s ent ence enhanc ementdet erm i ned notby a j ury butby a tr i al j udge. ¶2. O n February 8, 2002, i n c onj unct i on w i th the Pear l R i verB as i n N ar cot i cs T as k For ce ( her ei naf t er“the Task For ce” ) , a pol i ce inf orm antm ade a contr ol l ed pur chas e of cr ack co ca ine fro m C h asti ty C ran ford . T h e info rm an t t esti fi ed at tri al th a t, w h il e a t C ran ford ’s

### 2

a p a rtm e n t, he w a s ta k e n b y C ra n fo rd to se e Ju re k a B ro w n , w h o w a s in the b e d ro o m o f th e ir apartm ent . A ccor di ng t o the i nf orm ant , C r anf

or d aske d B r ow n i f

she coul d s el l cr ack c ocai ne to th e in fo rm a n t, t o w h ich B ro w n n o d d e d a ffirm a tiv e ly . C ra n fo rd to ld B ro w n th a t sh e w o u ld have t o r etr i eve the drugs f r om hi s car , and B r ow n handed herthe ke ys. A f t err etr i evi ng a quant i ty of

cr ack c ocai ne, C r anf

or d r eturned t o the apa r t m ent , br oke of f a pi ece , and s how ed i tt o B r ow n. A ccor di ng t o the i nf orm ant , B r ow n agai n nodded hi s head a f f i r m at i vel y. T he i nf or m antgave $20 t o C r anf or d, w ho gave the money t o B r ow n. ¶3. T he s ubs t ance pur chas ed by the i nfor m ant w as l at er det erm i ned t o be 0. 1 gr am of coca i ne. ¶4 . T he T as k F or ce r ecor ded t he t r ans act i on by w a y o f a ud i o s urve i l l a nc e on t he i nf orm ant ’s person. T he co nv ers at i on w i th C ranf ord app ears on the r ecor di ng; B r ow n’ s voi ce d o e s n o t. ¶5. T he j ury re turned a gui l ty ver di cton the cha r ge of s al e of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance on February 23, 2003. I m m edi at el y ther eaf t er , the courtm oved i nt o a bi f ur cat ed hea r i ng out s i de the p rese n ce o f th e jury to d eterm ine w h ethe r th e c ri m e o cc u rre d w ith in 1 , 5 0 0 fee t of a chur ch. T he s ol e w i tnes s atthi s hear i ng w as C om m anderB obby P att er s on of the Task For ce, w h o test if

ied th at he h a d m e a su red a d ist an ce o f ap p rox im ately 7 2 0 fee t betw ee n B row n ’s apartm entand the Seventh D ay A dvent i s tC hur ch. O n c r os s - exami nat i on, Pat t er s on admi t t ed thathe w as notcert ai n thatthe chur ch w as act i ve — “I tl ooks t o be open t o m e, ” Patt er s on s ai d – butt ol d the c ou r ton r e di r e c te xa mi na t i on tha tthe gr ou nd s a pp e a r e d t o h a ve been m ai nt ai ned.

### 3

¶6. T he tr i al j udge det erm i ned thatthe s al e of a c ontr ol l ed s ubst ance h ad taken plac e w i thin 1, 50 0 feetof a chu rch and en han ced B row n’s sent ence fr om thi rty years t o si xty years. ¶7. T he C our t cons i der s thr ee as s i gnm ent s of err or i n thi s cas e. Fi r s t , B r ow n ar gues that th e e v i d e n c e wa s i n s u f

f i c i e n ta s a ma t t e ro f

l a w t o s u p p o r ta g u i l ty v e r d i c t . S e c o n d , Br o wn ar gues thatthe j ury’ s ver di ctw as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence . T hi r d, B row n arg u es th at his S ixth A m en d m en t ri g h t t o a jury tr ial w as v iolated b y the tri al co u rt ’s fa ilu re to re q u ire a ju ry d e ter m in a tio n o n th e se n ten c in g e n h a n c e m e n t. I. ¶ 8 . “ [J ]u ry v e rd ic ts w ill n o t b e d is tu rb e d e x c e p t u n d e r th e m o s t d ir e o f c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” S tew a rt v. S ta te , 986 So. 2d 304, 308 ( M i s s . 2008) ( quot i ng A n de rs o n v. S ta te , 904 So. 2d 973, 977 ( M i s s . 2004) ) . W hen r evi ew i ng a ca s e f ors uf f i ci ency of

t he evi dence , “[ t ] he r el evantques t i on i s w hether , af t er vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the p r o s e c u t i o n , a n y r a t i o n a l tr i e ro f f a c tc o u l d h a v e f

o u n d th e e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t s of th e c r i me beyond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” J o n e s v . S ta te , 904 So. 2d 149, 153- 54 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng J a c kso n v. V

irg in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 5 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 L . E d . 2 d 5 6 0 (1 9 7 9 )). T h e S tate m us thave s how n “beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatacc us ed comm i t t ed the actc har ged, and that he did so un d er su ch cir cu m stan ce s th at ev ery elem en t o f th e o ffen se ex ist ed ; an d w h ere the evi dence f

ai l s t o m eetthi s t es ti ti s i ns uf f i ci entt o s uppor ta convi ct i on. ” Jones , 904 So. 2d at153 ( quot i ng Ca rrv. S ta te , 208 So. 2d 886, 889 ( M i s s . 1968)) . If , keepi ng i n m i nd the r eas onabl e- doubts t andar d, “‘ r eas onabl e f ai r - m i nded men i n the exe r ci se of i m part i al j udgm entm i ghtr eac h di f f er entconcl us i ons on every el ementof the of f ens e, ’ the evi dence

### 4

w i l l be dee m ed t o have be en s uf f i ci ent . ” B u sh v. S tate , 8 95 S o. 2d 836, 843 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng E dw a rds v . S ta te , 4 6 9 S o . 2 d 6 8 , 7 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 )). ¶9 . “W h en review ing th e su ffi cien cy of th e e v iden ce , this C o u rtloo k s at th e low er co u rt ’s rul i ng ‘ on the l as tocca s i on w he n the s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence w as chal l enged. ’ ” B al lenger v. S ta te , 667 So. 2d 1242, 1252 ( M i s s . 1995) ( quot i ng G re e n v. S ta te , 631 So. 2d 167, 174 ( M i s s . 1994) ) . B r ow n’ s m os tr ece ntc hal l enge came athi s m ot i on f ora new tr i al ; ther ef

or e, the en t i rety o f the e v i den ce present ed ag ai nsthim attri al i s consi dered “in the li gh tm ost f avor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on . . . . ” Jones , 904 So. 2d at153. ¶10. A gui l ty ver di ctunderS ect i on 41-29- 139 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode r equi r es the s al e of a c o n tro lle d su b sta n c e a n d th e in ten t to h a v e d o n e so . In th e im m e d iate c a se , the S tate p re se n ted e v id e n c e (in th e fo rm o f th e in fo rm a n t’s te stim o n y ) th a t B ro w n n o t o n ly acknow l edged butacqui es ced t o the s al e of cr ack c ocai ne. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 41- 29- 139 ( R ev. 2005). T he i nf

orm ant ’ s t es t i m ony w as contr adi ct ed by the onl y w i tnes s s ubm i t t ed by th e d e fe n se , C h a stity C ra n fo rd . B u t w h e re th e re is c o n flictin g tes tim o n y , “[i]tis n o t fo r th is C o u rt to p a ss u p o n th e c re d ib ili ty o f w itn e ss e s a n d w h e re e v id e n c e ju stifie s th e v e rd ict it m us tbe ac cept ed as havi ng been f ound w or thy of

bel i ef . ” W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 427 So. 2d 100, 1 0 4 (M is s . 1 9 8 3 ) ( s u p e rs e d e d b y s ta tu te o n o th e r g ro u n d s , s ee Ho sfo rdv. S ta te , 560 So. 2d 163, 167 ( M i s s . 1990) ) . B eca us e s uch a det erm i nat i on r es t s w i thi n the uni que pr ovi nce of the j ury, the jury d i d n ot actun reas on ably by d eci ding that C ran ford ’s t est i m on y w as l ess credi ble than the inf

orm ant’ s.

### 5

¶11. A r at i onal j ury c oul d ha ve f ound Brow n gui l ty be yond a r eas onabl e doubtbas ed on th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted , c o n sid e re d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e p ro se c u tio n . T h e g u ilty ver di ctw as notbas ed on i ns uf f i ci entevi dence . ¶ 1 2 . T h is p o in t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. II. ¶1 3. “I n det er m i ni ng w he the ra j ury v e r di c ti s a ga i ns tthe ov e rw he l mi ng w e i gh tof t he ev iden ce , th is C o u rt m u st ac ce p t as tru e the ev iden ce w h ich su p p o rts th e v e rd ict a n d w ill r ever s e onl y w hen convi nced thatthe ci r cui tcourthas abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n f ai l i ng t o gr ant a new tr i al . ” He rr in gv. S ta te , 691 So. 2d 948, 957 ( M i s s . 1997) ( ci t i ng T h o rn h ill v. S ta te , 561 So. 2d 1025, 1030 ( M i s s . 1989) ) . D ur i ng s uch an i nqui ry, w e af f or d the S t at e “the benef i tof a l l f avor abl e i nf

er ence s thatmay r eas onabl y be dr aw n f r om the evi dence . ” G riffin v. S ta te , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ). R e v e rsa l on the se g ro u n d s is a p p ro p ria te o n ly w h e n “ th e v e rd ict is so co 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. ” J o h n so n v. S ta te , 642 So. 2d 924, 928 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ) (c iti n g , in te ra lia , McN e a l v. S ta te , 6 1 7 S o . 2 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 0 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 3 )). C onf l i ct i ng t es t i m ony does note vi nce overw hel m i ng e vi dence ; “ [ w ] her e the ver di ctturns on the c red ibil ity o f c o n fli cti n g test im o n y an d the c red ibil ity o f th e w itn esse s, itis th e jury ’s duty t o r es ol ve the conf l i ct . ” N ic h o lso n v. S ta te , 523 So. 2d 68, 71 ( M i s s . 1988) ( ci t at i ons o m itted). ¶14. A s e xpl ai ned underthe pr evi ous poi ntof err or , the j ury r ece i ved conf l i ct i ng t es t i m ony re g a rd in g B ro w n ’s r o le in th e sa le o f c ra c k c o c a in e to th e in fo rm a n t. T h e trial c o u rt p ro p e rly

### 6

l ef tr es ol ut i on of

thatconf

l i ctw i th the j ury and di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n r ef us i ng B ro w n ’s m o tio n fo r a n e w trial. ¶ 1 5 . T h is p o in t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. III . ¶1 6 . T u rnin g fr o m his co n v ict ion to h is sen tenc e, B row n arg u es th at th e tri al co u rt ’s fail u re t o al l ow a j ury t o cons i derhi s s ent ence enhanc ementvi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o a j ury tr i al under th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. ¶17. B r ow n f

ace s a pr ocedur al ba ron thi s point , bu tbecau se i t s di scussi on res t s on im p o rta n t p o in ts fro m th e su b sta n c e o f h is a rg u m e n t, th e su b sta n tiv e iss u e is a d d re ss e d first. A. ¶1 8 . “O ther tha n the fa ct of a p ri o r co n v ict ion , an y fac t th at i n cre a se s th e p en alty for a cr i m e beyond the pr es cr i bed s t atut ory m axi m um m us tbe subm i t t ed t o a j ury, and pr oved beyond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” A ppr endiv. N

ew Jers ey , 530 U . S. 466, 490, 120 S. C t . 2348, 1 4 7 L . E d . 2 d 4 3 5 (2 0 0 0 ). T h e sta tu te u n d e r w h ich B ro w n w a s s e n ten c e d p e rm its trial c o u rts t o l evy se nt ence s of up t o t w o t i m es the norm al l y pr es cr i bed pena l ty. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 41- 2 9 -1 4 2 (R e v . 2 0 0 5 ). A lth o u g h this C o u rt h a s h e ld rep e a ted ly th a t A ppr endid o es n o t r eq u ir e pr os ecut or s t o pr ovi de not i ce t o capi t al def endant s of the spe ci f

i c aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s to b e a rg u e d a t tr ia l, s e e , e .g ., T h o n gL e v . S tate , 9 6 7 S o . 2 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 7 ), th is C o u rt h a s n o t r ep u d iat ed the g en era l ru le of A ppr endi . T h e e x ist en ce o f a c h u rch w ith in 1, 500 f eetof B r ow n’ s cr i m e, ther ef

or e, i s a f actthathe w as ent i t l ed t o have de t erm i ned by a jury . T h e S tat e c o n ce d es a s m u ch in it s rep ly b ri ef.

### 7

¶19. I n de ci di ng w hetherB row n w as ent i t l ed to a j ury hea ri ng on t he sent enci ng enhanc ement , the tr i al courtr el i ed s ol el y on thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n W ill ia m s v. S ta te , 794 S o. 2d 181 (M i s s . 2001) . I n Wil lia ms , thi s C our taddr es s ed the appe al of a def endant convi ct ed of

s al e of a con t rol l ed s ubs t ance w hos e s ent ence had bee n enhanc ed by the tr i al j udge becaus e the cr i m e t ook pl ace w i thi n the s t atut or i l y pr es cr i bed di s t ance of s chool p ro p e rty . T h e trial ju d g e in th e im m e d iate c a se a p p e a rs to h a v e re lied o n lan g u a g e in Wil lia ms th a t co rre c tly n o tes th a t th e 1 ,5 0 0 -f e e t f a c t i s n o t an e lem e n t o f th e c rim e o f sa le o f a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . See Wil lia ms , 794 So. 2d at186. ¶ 2 0 . B u t t o th e e x ten t th a t Wil lia ms c l a i ms no j ury he a r i ng i s ne c e s s a ry on the i s s ue of se n ten c in g e n h a n c e m e n t p u rsu a n t to S e c tio n 4 1 -2 9 -1 4 2 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o d e , itlies in pat entconf

l i ctw i th the U . S. Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n A ppr endi . W e h o ld to d a y th a t,

“ [ o ] th e rth a n th e f

a c to f a p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n , a n y f a c tth a ti n c r e a s e s t h e p e n a l ty f o ra c r i me beyond the pr es cr i bed s t atut ory m axi m um m us tbe s ubm i t t ed t o a j ury, and pr oved beyond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” A

ppr endiv. N

ew Jers ey , 5 3 0 U .S . a t 49 0 . T o the ex ten t th a t Wil lia ms conf l i ct s w i th thi s hol di ng, i ti s overrul ed. B. ¶21. H ow ever , the mer i t s of hi s Ap p re n di o bjecti o n n o tw ith stan d ing , B row n faces a p ro c e d u ra l b a r i n ra is in g th is p o in t o f e rr o r, a s h e d id n o t r a is e it a t th e tr ia l c o u rt . A d e fe n d a n t c a n n o t b ri n g a p o in t o f e rr o r fo r th e fi rs t tim e o n a p p e a l. S a v a n n a h v. S ta te , 840 S o . 2 d 7 1 7 , 7 2 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ). A n y a ss ig n m e n t o f e rr o r o th e rw ise p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d is a p p e a la b le o n ly w h e n th e tr ia l c o u rte m p lo y e d p la in e rr o r. Fo ste r v . S ta te , 639 So. 2d 1263, 1 2 8 8 -89 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). T h e p lai n erro r do ctri n e re q u ir es n o t on ly the ex ist en ce o f an erro r,

### 8

b u t a ls o th a t e ith e r t h e e rr o r r e s u lte d in a m a n if e s t m is c a rr ia g e o f j u s tic e , G ra y v. S ta te , 549 S o . 2 d 13 1 6 , 13 2 1 (M iss. 19 8 9 ), or “se ri o u sly affec t[ s] th e fairne ss, integ ri ty or p u b lic r eput at i on of

j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” U nited States v. A t

kinson , 2 9 7 U .S . 1 5 7 , 1 6 0 , 5 6 S . C t. 39 1, 80 L . E d. 55 5 (193 6). A l so, even a plai n err or i s r ecog nized on l y “w hen i taff ect s a def endant ’ s s ubs t ant i ve/ f

undament al r i ght s . ” Sn o w v. S ta te , 80 0 S o . 2d 47 2, 48 3 (M i ss. 2 0 0 1 ). ¶ 2 2 . F re e d o m fr o m p h y s ic a l r e s tr a in t is a f u n d a m e n ta l r ig h t. Foucha v. Louis iana , 504 U . S . 71 , 86 , 11 2 S . C t . 17 80 , 11 8 L . E d. 2d 4 37 (199 2). S ub st anti al i ncreases i n sentence al so im p lic a te d u e p ro c e s s to su c h a d e g re e a s to a v o id p ro c e d u ra l b a rs . See Sm ith v. S ta te , 477 S o . 2d 19 1 , 19 5 (M iss. 19 8 5 ) ( “T h e co m p arison of a sev en ye ar sen tenc e, as o p p o sed to a lif e s ent ence , w i thoutpr obat i on orpar ol e i s t oo s i gni f i canta depr i vat i on of

li berty t o be s ubj ect ed t o a pr ocedur al bar . ”) . Fur therm or e, f ai l ure t o adher e t o the cl eardemands of A ppr endiu n d o u b tedly co n sti tutes erro r. ¶23. T he cr i t i cal ques t i on, ther ef or e, i s w hether the err or i s pl ai n. Such an i nqui ry f ocus es n o t o n th e re s u lt re a c h e d th ro u g h fla w e d p ro c e d u re b u t o n th e p ro c e d u re its e lf . See U nited S tates v. Cotton , 53 5 U. S. 62 5, 63 2, 12 2 S. Ct . 17 81 , 15 2 L. Ed. 2d 86 0 ( 20 02 ) ( “ The G overnm entconce des thatthe i ndi ctm ent ’ s f ai l ure t o al l ege a f

act. . . [ w as ] err oneous u n d er the rea so n ing o f A ppr endi. . . [an d ] also th a t su c h e rro r w a s p lain .”). In th e im m e d iate c a se , th e tri a l co u rt’s e rro r am o u n ted to a failu re to a ffo rd a c rim in a l de fe n d a n t th e S ix th A m endmentr i ghtt o a j ury. E ven w her e the gui l tof a def endanti s beyond di s put e, deni al of a j ury tr i al undoubt edl y i m pl i cat es “t he f ai rnes s , i nt egr i ty orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs , ” A t

kinson , 2 9 7 U . S . at 16 0 , there b y co n sti tuti n g clea r error.

### 9 C. ¶2 4 . T h is de term ination d o es n o t co n clud e o u r i n q u iry , ho w ev er. T h e U . S . S u p rem e C o u rt “ha[ s ] r epea t edl y r ecogni zed thatthe comm i s s i on of a cons t i tut i onal err orattr i al al one does notent i t l e a de f

endantt o aut om at i c r ever s al . I ns t ead, ‘ m ostconst i tut i onal err or s can be harm l es s . ’ ” W

as hington v. R ecuenco , 548 U . S. 212, 218, 126 S. Ct . 2546, 165 L . E d. 2d 466 ( 20 06 ) ( qu ot i ng N

eder v . U

nited States , 527 U . S. 1, 8, 119 S. C t . 1827, 144 L . E d. 2d 35 (1 9 9 9 )) . S p e c if

ic a lly , A ppr endie rro rs a re n o t stru c tu ra l in n a tu re a n d w ill n o t b e re v e rse d if th e e rr o r w a s h a rm le s s . N eder , 527 U . S. at8. ¶2 5 . “ T h e b a sic te st f o r ha rm less erro r i n the fe d era l con sti tuti o n al realm g o es b a c k to Ch a p m a n v. Ca lifo rn ia , 386 U . S. 18, 17 L . Ed. 2d 705, 87 S. C t . 824 ( 1967) . T he Chapm an t es ti s whethe ri ta pp e a r s ‘ be yo nd a r e a s on a bl e d ou bttha tthe e rr orc ompl a i ne d of di d not contr i but e t o the ver di ctobt ai ned. ’ ” T h o m a s v. S tate , 7 1 1 S o . 2 d 8 6 7 , 8 7 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). N o n stru ctura l, co n sti tuti o n a l errors in the fac e o f “o v erw h elm ing ev iden ce o f gu il t” are h a rm le s s e rr o rs . I

d. ¶ 2 6 . I n th e i mm e d i a t e c a s e , th e e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n e d wi th i n th e r e c o r d s h o wi n g th a tBr o wn act ed w i thi n 1, 500 fe etof a c hur ch w as f arf r om overw hel m i ng. T he St at e pr es ent ed j us tone w i tnes s , T as k For ce Com m anderB obby Pat t er s on, dur i ng the s ent enci ng hear i ng. Pat t er s on tes tified th a t B ro w n ’s a p a rtm e n t la y s o m e 7 2 0 fe e t fro m a b u ild in g id e n tified a s th e S e v e n th D ay A dvent i s tC hur ch. H ow ever , w hen as ked by the pr os ecut orw hetherthi s w as “ an ac t i ve c h u rc h ,” P a tters o n c o u ld o n ly a ttes t, “A s fa r a s I k n o w , itis.” O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , this as s ert i on gr ew even l es s s tur dy. A s ked by def ens e couns el w hether“thatchur ch ha[ s ] an act i ve cha r t erori s . . . j us ta c l os ed bui l di ng, ” Pat t er s on t ol d the court , “ I tl ooks t o be open

### 10

t o m e. ” Pat t er s on’ s i nves t i gat i on i nt o t he m att erl acke d depth t o such a degr ee thathe di d not even not i ce l i ght s oract i vi ty w i thi n the bui l di ng. E vi dence thatthi s s tructur e w as an ac t i ve c h u rc h w a s fa r fro m “ o v e rw h e lm in g ,” a n d re a so n a b le d o u b t ex ists o n th e p o in t. ¶2 7 . U n d er A

ppr endi , B ro w n e n

jo y e d a S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to h a v e th e is s u e o f h is s e n te n c e e n h a n c e m e n t s u b m itte d to a ju ry . A ppr endi , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 . T h e o m iss io n w a s p lain err or , and the out come di d notamountt o harm l es s err or . B r ow n’ s as s i gnm entof err orhas m e rit. I V. ¶2 8 . T h e e v id e n c e introd u ce d ag ains t B row n w as n o t insu ffi cien t as a m att er o f la w to s uppor tthe j ury’ s gui l ty ver di ct , and the ver di ctw as notagai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ght of the evi dence . ¶29. H ow ever, the S i xth A m end m ent r equ i res that the is sue of B row n’s sent ence enhanc ementbe s ubm i t t ed t o a j ury. A l though def ens e couns el di d notpr es erve the i s s ue f or appea l , the poi ntr emai ns appea l abl e by vi r tue of the f actthatthe A

ppr endivi ol at i on co n sti tuted p lai n erro r. ¶30 . B r ow n’ s convi ct i on i s af f i rm ed. T he r es ul t i ng thi rty- years ent ence , pur s uantt o Sect i on 41-29- 139( a) ( 1) of

the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode, w as pr operand i s af f i r m ed. B utthe thi r ty- year s ent ence enhanc ement , pur s uantt o Sect i on 41- 29- 142 of the M i s s i ssi ppi C ode, i s vaca t ed, a n d th e m a tter is r e m a n d e d to M a rio n C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt fo r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith thi s opi ni on. ¶ 3 1 . CONVI CT I ON OF S AL E OF A C ON T RO L L E D S UB S TA NCE AND SENTE NC E O F TH I RT Y ( 3 0 ) YE AR S I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI

### 11

DE P ART M EN T OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . S EN TE NCE EN HANCE M EN T OF THI RT Y ( 3 0 ) YE ARS I S VACAT ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, P . J . , GRAVE S , DI CKI NS ON AND RA NDOL P H, J J . , CONCUR. EAS LEY, J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N RESULT. CARLS ON , J . , S PECI ALLY C O N C U R S W I T H S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y W A L L E R , P .J ., D I C K I N S O N A N D R A N D O L P H , J J .; S M I T H , C .J ., J O I N S I N P A R T . L A M A R , J ., NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . CA RL S ON , J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶32. W hi l e I f

ul l y concur i n t oday’ s m aj or i ty opi ni on, I w r i t e s epar at el y t o expand on the m aj or i ty’ s tr eatm entof

the se nt enci ng i s s ue conce rni ng enhance m entof the pena l ty pur s uant to M is s is s ip p i C o d e A n n o ta te d S e c tio n 4 1 -2 9 -1 4 2 (R e v . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶33. E vi dent l y thi s C our thas notbeen s quar el y conf r ont ed w i th thi s i s s ue s i nce the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n A ppr endiv. N

ew Jers ey , 530 U . S. 466, 120 S. C t . 2348, 147 L . E d. 2d 435 ( 2000) . N o doubt , thi s C our thas been c onf r ont ed w i th A

ppr endii s s ues in c e rt a in c ri m in a l c a s e s , s u c h a s t h o s e i n v o lv in g th e d e a th p e n a lty . S e e e .g ., H avar d v. S ta te , 988 So. 2d 322 ( M i s s . 2008) . O urtr i al j udges have f orm any yea r s been a ccus t om ed t o conduct i ng non-

j ury s ent enci ng hear i ngs underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i ons 99- 19- 81 and 99- 19- 83 ( R ev. 2007) ( habi tual - of f enders t atut es ) , and M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 4 1 -29 -14 7 (R ev . 2 0 0 5 ) (seco n d an d su b seq u en t dru g -offen d er statute), a n d t h e ma

j o r i ty c o rr e c t l y n o t e s th a tp r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s a r e e x c e p t e d f r o m A ppr endii ns of

ar a s re q u ir in g ju ry d e te rm in a tio n o f f a c t is s u e s fo r e n h a n c e m e n t o f p u n is h m e n t. A ppr endi , 530 U . S. at490. ¶3 4 . L ikew ise, th ere can be l ittl e d o u b t tha t o u r tria l ju d g e s, in c o n d u c tin g n o n -j u ry se n ten c in g h e a rin g s p u rsu a n t to s e c tio n 4 1 -2 9 -1 4 2 , h a v e re lied o n th is C o u rt’s d e c isio n s in

### 12

such ca ses as J

o h n so n v. S ta te , 904 So. 2d 162, 170-71 ( M i s s . 2005); and Co lem a n v. S ta te , 786 So. 2d 397, 399- 400 ( M i s s . 2001) ; a s w el l a s the C our tof A ppeal s ’ deci s i on i n Fos ter v. S ta te , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 8 7 3 , 8 8 7 (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ), cer t . deni ed , 92 9 S o. 2d 92 3 (M i ss. 2 0 0 6 ). H o w e v e r, in n o n e o f th e se c a se s w a s th e a p p e llate c o u rt c o n fro n ted w ith A ppr endi i s s ues i n the cont extof f act - f i ndi ng on the partof

the j ury w hi ch mi ghthave an ef f ecton s ent ence enhanc ementby t he tr i al j udge. A ddi t i onal l y, ourtr i al j udges have ha d every r i ght t o r el y on t he l anguage of the st atut e i t s el f , w hi ch pr ovi des t hatt he se nt ence m ay be doubl ed ortr ebl ed, “i n the di s cr et i on of the court . ” H ow ever , thi s s t atut e w as enac t ed pr i ort o t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n A p p r e n di. P o st-A

ppr endi , w e now know that w hi l e s ent ence enhanc ementi s s t i l l the f unct i on of

the s ent enci ng j udge, pur s uantt o s ect i on 41- 29- 142, t he se nt enci ng j udge m ay, i n hi s or herdi s cr et i on, doubl e ort r i pl e the s ent ence onl y upon a f

act - f i ndi ng by the j ury thatthe di s t ance betw een the s i t e of the drug of

f ens e and the s t atutor i l y desi gnat ed s i t e w hi ch tr i gger s s ect i on 41- 29- 142' s appl i cabi l i ty m eet s the r equi r ements etoutby the s t atut e. ¶35. A ddi t i onal l y, as poi nt ed outby the maj or i ty, thi s Court ’ s de ci s i on i n W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 794 So. 2d 181 ( M i s s . 2001) , coul d eas i l y ha ve been cons trued, a s i tw as by the tr i al j udge i n t oday’ s cas e, t o have s anct i oned a non- j ury s ent enci ng hear i ng unders ect i on 41- 29- 142, w hi ch i ncl uded the j udge’ s fa ct - f i ndi ng concerni ng t he di s t ance betw een the s i t e of the drug cr i m e and the chur ch. ¶ 3 6 . V ia to d a y ’s c a se , o u r trial ju d g e s h a v e th u s b e e n a ler ted to th e fa c t th a t p u rsu a n t to A ppr endi , exce pti n thos e ca s es i nvol vi ng pr i orconvi ct i ons as the enha ncer , any f act det erm i nat i on w hi ch mi ghtenhanc e the puni s hm entf orthe cr i m e mustbe s ubm i t t ed t o the

### 13

ju ry fo r d e ter m in a tio n a s to w h e th e r s u c h fa c t h a s b e e n p ro v e n b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. A ppr endi , 530 U . S. at490. O nl y then may t he s ent enci ng j udge enha nce the puni s hm entas pr es cr i bed by s t atut e. W AL LE R, P. J . , DI CKI NS ON AND RANDOL P H, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON. S M I TH, C. J . , J OI NS T HI S OPI NI ON I N PART.