Case Name: Lonell (Lonwell) BARNWELL v. STATE of Mississippi
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1990-08-22
Citations: 567 So. 2d 215
Docket Number: No. 07-KA-59207
Parties: Lonell (Lonwell) BARNWELL v. STATE of Mississippi.
Judges: HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, PITTMAN and BLASS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 567
Pages: 215–227

Head Matter:
Lonell (Lonwell) BARNWELL v. STATE of Mississippi.
No. 07-KA-59207.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Aug. 22, 1990.
Lampkin H. Butts, Laurel, for appellant.
Mike C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Jack B. Lacy, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.
. In some states, "uttering” a forgery is not listed as a crime. In those jurisdictions, the comparison is made with their substantive forgery statutes. Whenever possible, an attempt will be made to note when a statute covers the uttering of a forgery. Also, any references to forgery or "uttering” a forgery in this portion of the opinion are to checks only. This distinction is necessary because many states base their sentencing structure for forged instruments on what type of instrument is forged.

Opinion:
PRATHER, Justice, for the court as to part I:
Lonell Barnwell, also known as "Lon-well" Barnwell, was tried by a jury for the charge of uttering a forged document, in this case, a check. He was found guilty by the jury and was sentenced by the Circuit Court of Jones County to fifteen (15) years imprisonment as an habitual offender under § 99-19-81, Miss.Code Ann. (Supp. 1990). Barnwell has now appealed his conviction to this Court, citing as error the following:
(1) THE PROOF IN THE CASE FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CHECK HE CASHED HAD BEEN FORGED.
(2) THE STATE FAILED TO PROPERLY COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY.
(3) THE APPELLANT'S SENTENCE AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER IS SO SEVERE AND DISPROPORTIONAL TO THE OFFENSE CHARGED AS TO CONSTITUTE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.
I.
In April of 1986, Almedia H. Cooley lived in Laurel and maintained a checking account with the Bank of Laurel. Lonwell Barnwell had been living with Ms. Cooley for five or six months in her home.
Ms. Cooley sent her son to the Bank of Laurel to cash a $100.00 check on her account. Someone at the bank called Ms. Cooley to inform her that she did not have sufficient funds to cover the check, and asked her if she knew a "Lonwell" Barn- well because he had recently cashed a $500.00 check on Ms. Cooley's account.
Barnwell was at Ms. Cooley's residence when she received this phone call. She asked him if he had indeed cashed such a check; the appellant denied having done so. When Ms. Cooley attempted to call the police, Barnwell "jumped up and slammed the phone out of my hand and down on the table and ran out the door." Ms. Cooley did not see him again until the day of the trial. Ms. Cooley was able to convince the bank that the check Barnwell cashed was a forgery, and it reimbursed her that amount.
Maria Hudson, a teller at the Bank of Laurel, testified that she had cashed a $500.00 check at the drive-up window on April 9, 1986, the day the crime allegedly took place. The check, payable to "Lon-well Barnwell", was endorsed in the same manner. Before cashing the check, Ms. Hudson asked for driver's license identification, and wrote the number on the back of the check. The number on the back of the check matched Barnwell's license number. Ms. Hudson positively identified the appellant as the man who cashed the check from a series of pictures shown to her less than two weeks after the crime took place. At trial, two years after the fact, she was less certain of her identification.
Frank Hicks, a handwriting expert with the Mississippi State Crime Laboratory, compared the handwriting on the check with several known samples of Barnwell's handwriting. He testified that the endorsement on the check and the known samples of Barnwell's handwriting were a match. He also noted certain irregularities in the writing on the front side of the check which led him to the conclusion that the writing on the front of the check might not represent the true handwriting characteristics of the writer.
Following the presentation of the State's case, Barnwell, who was attempting to try the case himself, aided by his appointed counsel, presented no witnesses. The jury, after deliberating some nine (9) minutes, found Barnwell guilty of the crime charged. After a bifurcated sentencing hearing, the trial judge sentenced Barnwell to fifteen (15) years incarceration at the Mississippi Department of Corrections, without parole, based on his status as an habitual offender under § 99-19-81, Miss. Code Ann. (Supp.1990). Barnwell has now perfected his appeal to this Court.
II.
DID THE PROOF IN THIS CASE FAIL TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CHECK HE CASHED HAD BEEN FORGED?
Under this assignment of error, Barnwell is challenging the sufficiency of the State's proof; in effect he is asserting that the State never proved the elements of the offense charged, and that his motion for a directed verdict and/or a new trial should have been granted. His argument is without merit.
Barnwell relies on the authority of Keyes v. State, 166 Miss. 316, 148 So. 361 (1933), for the proposition that the prosecution must prove scienter, or knowledge, on the part of the appellant as to the fact of the check's falsity. Although his citation of Keyes is correct, the crucial issue before this Court is whether the State's proof created a sufficient question of fact so as to survive a motion for a directed verdict. Of utmost importance in considering this issue is the fact that Barnwell presented no evidence of his own to rebut the State's case.
In considering a motion for a directed verdict, a reviewing court must consider the evidence introduced in a light most favorable to the State, accepting all evidence introduced by the State as true, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom. If there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict, the motion for a directed verdict must be overruled. Davis v. State, 530 So.2d 694, 703 (Miss.1988); Thompson v. State, 457 So.2d 953, 955 (Miss.1984).
A motion for a new trial is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Gavin v. State, 473 So.2d 952, 956 (Miss.1985); May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss.1984). A trial judge should grant such a motion only where he is convinced that the verdict is contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence. May, supra; Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d 297, 300 (Miss.1983). In this case, the trial judge properly denied both the motion for a directed verdict and the motion for a new trial.
The proof in this case showed that the check which formed the basis for the charges was taken without Ms. Cooley's knowledge. She did not learn that the check was missing until the bank called to tell her that she had insufficient funds in her account to cash a $100.00 check. She was informed by the bank that one Lonell Barnwell had cashed a $500.00 check purportedly written by her, which, according to her testimony at trial, was done without her knowledge. She also testified that the handwriting on the check was not hers and that she had never given Barnwell permission to cash such a check. When she attempted to call the police, Barnwell slammed the phone down and ran from the house.
The bank teller who took the check positively identified the appellant as the man who cashed the check, and Frank Hicks, a forensic scientist from the Mississippi Crime Lab, also testified that the endorsement on the back of the check was definitely written by Barnwell.
Based on the overwhelming amount of proof offered by the State, and the total lack of proof offered by the appellant, the trial judge properly denied the motion for a directed verdict and the motion for a new trial. There is no merit to this assignment of error.
III.
DID THE STATE FAIL TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY?
Under this assignment of error, Barnwell asserts that the State failed to comply with Rule 4.06 of the Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice, which addresses the requirements for proper discovery. The purpose behind Rule 4.06 is to prevent what this Court has termed, "[t]he practice of trial by ambush ." Coates v. State, 495 So.2d 464, 467 (Miss.1986). This Court went on to say in Coates that "this Court has been required time after time in recent years to reverse criminal convictions because at trial the prosecution was allowed to use evidence which in discovery it was obligated to disclose to the defense but for whatever reason withheld." [Citations omitted]. Id.
It should be noted initially that the appellant in this case, Lonell Barnwell, had two attorneys appointed to represent him. Nonetheless, the State made every effort to reasonably comply with the discovery.
The district attorney noted that, if called to testify, he would state under oath that he was served by the appellant with a demand for discovery. He would also have testified that, although defense counsel at the time was the public defender, discovery was served on the appellant. Furthermore, an investigator for the district attorney's office testified that he prepared and delivered the discovery to the appellant in jail; on cross-examination, the appellant stated to the court that he had never seen the investigator before, and that he had never received a witness list.
Ronald Parrish, the public defender originally appointed to represent the appellant, testified that he received discovery from the State, which was accompanied by a list of the State's witnesses in chief. He additionally testified that, to his knowledge, nothing was withheld from him. On cross-examination, he testified that he received a witness list for the charge upon which the appellant was being tried, No. 6400. He also testified that while he did not give a list of witnesses to Barnwell, he did go over the list with him while Barnwell was in jail.
Lampkin Butts, the second attorney appointed to represent Barnwell, testified that he had made a copy of the prosecutor's file, and that the prosecutor's secretary had copied for him every item in the file. He further testified that he took the copies to the appellant in jail, and although not supplied with a list of witnesses, he had discussed with the appellant each of the witnesses' names from the file. The attorney was not surprised at trial with any witnesses called by the State. The State complied with Rule 4.06 in this case, and this Court has noted no discovery violations. Therefore, there is no merit to this assignment of error. The conviction of Lo-nell Barnwell on the charge of uttering a forged document is affirmed.
ROY NOBLE LEE, Chief Justice, for the court as to part IV.
Under his final assignment of error, Barnwell asserts that the fifteen year sentence he received as an habitual offender, without hope of parole, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. As authority, he cites this Court's opinion in Clowers v. State, 522 So.2d 762 (Miss.1988).
Barnwell was indicted under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-21-59 (1972), for uttering a forgery and under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-81 as an habitual offender. The penalty for uttering a forgery is the same as the punishment for forgery itself. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-21-33 (1972), provides that the penalty for forgery is a term of not less than two years, nor more than fifteen years. The indictment which charged Barnwell as an habitual offender noted that he had two prior felony convictions: A July 9, 1971 conviction for theft of personal property of the value of $50.00 or more, for which he received a seven year prison term in Texas, and a March 6, 1972 federal conviction in Texas for possession of stolen mail, for which he received a five year term. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81 provides:
Every person convicted in this state of a felony who shall have been convicted twice previously of any felony or federal crime upon charges separately brought and arising out of separate incidents at different times and who shall have been sentenced to separate terms of one (1) year or more in any state and/or federal penal institution whether in this state or elsewhere shall be sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for such felony, and such sentence shall not be reduced or suspended nor shall such person be eligible for parole or probation.
Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-81 (Supp.1990) (emphasis added).
It is clear under the facts of this case and the applicable statutes that if Barnwell was found guilty of the charge of uttering a forgery he could be sentenced as an habitual offender under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-81 to fifteen (15) years without hope of parole.
Barnwell was indeed found guilty of forgery by a jury after deliberations of only nine (9) minutes. The trial judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was an habitual offender within the scope of Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-81 and sentenced Barnwell to fifteen years imprisonment.
Our Eighth Amendment analysis is guided by two factually dissimilar cases from the United States Supreme Court, Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980) and Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983).
In Rummel, the petitioner had previously been convicted of two non-violent felonies: fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 in goods and services and passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36. Upon conviction of his third felony, obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses, Rummel was deemed to be an habitual criminal within the purview of the Texas habitual criminal statute and was sentenced pursuant to the mandate of that statute to life in prison with possibility of parole. According to the Texas habitual criminal scheme, Rummel would be eligible for parole in twelve (12) years. Rummel, 445 U.S. at 267, 100 S.Ct. at 1136. In the context of that case, the majority of the United States Supreme Court rejected the three prong proportionality analysis offered by the dissent which was ultimately adopted in So-lem three years later, and held that the sentence imposed on the petitioner did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The Court noted that "[ojutside the context of capital punishment, successful challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences have been exceedingly rare." Rummel, 445 U.S. at 272, 100 S.Ct. at 1138.
In Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) the petitioner had previously been convicted of six non-violent felonies prior to his conviction of uttering a "no account" check for $100. After this final conviction, a South Dakota trial court sentenced Helm to life without parole pursuant to that state's recidivist statute. Solem, 463 U.S. at 282, 103 S.Ct. at 3006. The majority opinion in Solem held that the life sentence without parole was disproportionate and set out three "objective criteria" to guide a reviewing court's proportionality analysis: 1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; 2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and 3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.
The Court in Solem, stated that it's decision was not inconsistent with Rummel v. Estelle. Solem, 463 U.S. at 303 n. 32, 103 S.Ct. at 3017 n. 32 and expressly distinguished the two cases by stating that Rum-mel was eligible for parole while Helm was sentenced to life without possibility of parole. Id. Further, Rummel was still controlling in "similar factual situation^]" Id.
The Court reiterated that "[ojutside the context of capital punishment, successful challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences [will be] exceedingly rare," Solem, 463 U.S. at 289-290, 103 S.Ct. at 3009, (quoting Rummel, 445 U.S. at 272, 100 S.Ct. at 1138). Also, the Court stated:
[W]e do not adopt or imply approval of a general rule of appellate review of sentences. Absent specific authority, it is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence; rather, in applying the Eighth Amendment the appellate court decides only whether the sentence under review is within constitutional limits. In view of the substantial deference that must be accorded legislatures and sentencing courts, a reviewing court rarely will be required to engage in extended analysis to determine that a sentence is not constitutionally disproportionate.
Solem, 463 U.S. at 290 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. at 3009-10 n. 16.
This is not the first time this Court has addressed the issue of cruel and unusual punishment in the context of an habitual offender whose third conviction was forgery or uttering a forgery. A review of our previous decisions in this area is necessary and enlightening.
In 1984, this Court applied Eighth Amendment analysis to a factual situation nearly identical to the one presented today. In Seely v. State, 451 So.2d 213 (Miss.1984) the appellant had previously been twice convicted of non-violent felonies. His third conviction was for forgery and he was sentenced as an habitual offender to fifteen (15) years without parole pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81. He appealed to this Court and argued that his sentence was cruel and unusual and violated the Eighth Amendment.
After studying both Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) and Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980) this Court unanimously held that the appellant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Seely, 451 So.2d at 215-16. Justice Sullivan, writing for the Court stated:
The facts here are clearly similar to the situation governed by Rummel v. Estelle, supra. Here, as in Rummel, appellant was convicted of three non-violent felonies. Also, very little money was involved in this case. Sentencing in the two cases was similar. In Rummel, defendant was sentenced to life but was eligible for parole in twelve years. The practical effect of that sentence was twelve years without parole or probation, —a quantitative difference of only three years. It should further be noted that while Rummel would be eligible for parole in twelve years, he is not guaranteed parole in that span of time. The United States Supreme Court found that sentence under those factual circumstances did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Further, the Solem Court recognized that legislatures and sentencing courts should be given "substantial deference" and, combining this with the need for individualized sentencing results in a "wide range of constitutional sentences." Even under Solem then what remains to be determined would be whether the sentence is "grossly disproportionate." The three-year difference between Rummel and appellant here falls within that range of constitutional sentences and does not make one "grossly disproportionate" while the other is not.
Because Solem v. Helm expressly finds that Rummel v. Estelle has not been overruled, and with the factual situation here being far more similar to that of Rummel, we find that the second assignment of error is without merit and there is no Eighth Amendment violation.
Seely, 451 So.2d at 215-16.
Two years later, in 1986, this Court decided Burt v. State, 493 So.2d 1325 (Miss.1986), another case directly on point. There the appellant was convicted of uttering a forgery and was sentenced as an habitual offender pursuant to § 99-19-81. His conviction as a habitual offender was based on the forgery conviction and two separate felony convictions of burglary of a dwelling house. This Court again rejected an argument based on Solem v. Helm that a sentence of fifteen (15) years without parole for a forgery conviction which was enhanced under § 99-19-81 by two previous non-violent felonies, was a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Burt, 493 So.2d at 1330. The Court aptly stated:
It is urged on us that this case has some relationship to Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983); Whitmore v. Maggio, 742 F.2d 230 (5th Cir.1984); and Presley v. State, 474 So.2d 612 (Miss.1985). A review of these cases convinces us that any relationship is that of distant cousins and is not persuasive.
Burt, 493 So.2d at 1330.
In Clowers v. State, 522 So.2d 762 (Miss.1988), which the appellant relies on heavily, the trial court sentenced the appellant to five years without parole for uttering a forged check, rather than the maximum of fifteen (15) years without parole as was required by Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-81. In affirming the trial judge's decision, this Court noted that its approval of the sentence in that case should not be taken to mean that reduced sentences for habitual offenders should become the rule. Clowers, 522 So.2d at 765. We further noted:
What we hold today — and all we hold — is that the trial court did not commit reversible error in reducing what it found to be a disproportionate sentence under the facts of this case.
Clowers, 522 So.2d at 765.
Clowers, by its own statement, is limited to its own distinctive facts and procedural posture. The appellant's reliance on this case is misplaced.
In Solem, the Supreme Court determined that life without parole was an excessive punishment considering the non-violent nature of the defendant's crimes. Barnwell's prior crimes were also non-violent, but his punishment of fifteen (15) years without parole is also considerably less severe. When the facts of Solem and Rummel and the conclusions of the Supreme Court in those cases are examined, it is clear that this Court in Seely and Burt correctly concluded that Solem is inapplicable.
There are general principles which can be drawn from the Supreme Court's rulings in Rummel and Solem which have been adopted by a number of jurisdictions and which we now adopt. In cases factually similar to Rummel, Rummel provides the rule. Apart from the factual context of Solem — a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole — or a sentence which is manifestly disproportionate to the crime committed (e.g. life sentence for overtime parking, see, Rummel, 445 U.S. at 274 n. 11, 100 S.Ct. at 1139 n. 11) extended proportionality analysis is not required by the Eighth Amendment. Moreno v. Estelle, 717 F.2d 171, 180 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 975, 104 S.Ct. 2353, 80 L.Ed.2d 826 (1984); United States v. Rosenberg, 806 F.2d 1169, 1175 (3rd Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1070, 107 S.Ct. 2465, 95 L.Ed.2d 873 (1987); United States v. Rhodes, 779 F.2d 1019, 1028 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1182, 106 S.Ct. 2916, 91 L.Ed.2d 545 (1986); Chandler v. Jones, 813 F.2d 773, 778-79 (6th Cir.1987); Holley v. Smith, 792 F.2d 1046, 1049 (11th Cir.1986); State v. Wilson, 687 S.W.2d 720, 726 (Tenn.Cr.App.1984), cert. denied 472 U.S. 1030, 105 S.Ct. 3508, 87 L.Ed.2d 638 (1985); State v. Carlton, 733 S.W.2d 23, 27 (Mo.App.1987); McGee v. State, 467 So.2d 685, 690 (Ala.Cr.App.1985); Simpson v. State, 668 S.W.2d 915, 919 (Tex.App.1984); State v. Weiker, 366 N.W.2d 823, 826-27 (S.D.1985); Minor v. State, 313 Md. 573, 546 A.2d 1028, 1031 (1988); Maxwell v. State, 775 P.2d 818, 820 (Okl.Cr.1989); Taylor v. State, 511 N.E.2d 1036, 1038-40 (Ind.1987); People v. Hererra, 728 P.2d 366, 367 (Colo.App.1986); Williams v. State, 539 A.2d 164, 173 (Del.1988).
These principles are consistent with the Supreme Court's overriding theme expressed in both Solem and Rummel, of giving substantial deference to the legislature in determining the limits of punishment for crimes, as well as recognizing the discretion of trial courts in sentencing criminals. Further, they are consistent with our own prior case law on this subject. Though no sentence is "per se" constitutional, this Court, in the context of our habitual statutes, as well as in sentencing other offenders, has recognized the broad authority of the legislature and trial court in this area and has repeatedly held that where a sentence is within prescribed statutory limits, it will generally be upheld and not regarded as cruel and unusual. Byrd v. State, 522 So.2d 756, 760 (Miss.1988); Whitley v. State, 511 So.2d 929, 932 (Miss.1987); Adams v. State, 410 So.2d 1332, 1334 (Miss.1982); Baker v. State, 394 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Miss.1981); Anderson v. State, 381 So.2d 1019, 1024 (Miss.1980); Green v. State, 270 So.2d 695, 697 (Miss.1972); See also, Williams v. State, 456 So.2d 852, 856 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); United States v. Berryhill, 880 F.2d 275 (10th Cir.1989).
This assignment of error is without merit.
GUILTY OF UTTERING A FORGED DOCUMENT AND SENTENCE OF FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE HABITUAL OFFENDER'S STATUTE, WITHOUT BENEFIT OF PAROLE, EARLY RELEASE, SUSPENSION, REDUCTION OF SENTENCE AFFIRMED.
HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, PITTMAN and BLASS, JJ., concur.
PRATHER and ANDERSON, JJ., concur as to parts I, II, and III and dissent as to part IV.