Title: Diddlemeyer v. State
Citation: 398 So. 2d 1343
Docket Number: 52594
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: June 3, 1981

398 So. 2d 1343 (1981) Harold D. DIDDLEMEYER v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 52594. Supreme Court of Mississippi. June 3, 1981. *1344 Robert M. Acevedo, Biloxi, for appellant. Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Marvin L. White, Jr. Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before ROBERTSON, P.J., and SUGG and LEE, JJ. LEE, Justice, for the Court: Harold D. Diddlemeyer was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Honorable Ruble Griffin, presiding, on a charge of burglary as an habitual offender. He was found guilty by the jury and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole or probation. He has appealed and assigns seven (7) errors in the trial below. On March 8, 1979, appellant activated a silent alarm at Nacol's Jewelry Store in North Biloxi, while entering the building by prying open a section of the metal wall at the rear of the building and cutting through the interior wall. Officers of the Harrison County Sheriff's Department and the Biloxi Police Department converged on the scene and discovered appellant inside the building. He was ordered to come out at the point of entry and was arrested. The manager of the store had been notified and he arrived shortly thereafter. The appellant's person was searched, and a number of jewelry items were found in his pockets. They were identified by the manager as merchandise from the store. Was the appellant deprived of a speedy trial? After his arrest on March 8, 1979, appellant was returned to the Mississippi State Penitentiary because of parole violation. The February Grand Jury had adjourned at the time and appellant was indicted in August, 1979. Due to a crowded court docket, appellant was not called for arraignment until February 15, 1980, at which time it was found that he had not been served with a copy of the indictment. Thereupon, he was presented with the indictment, and one week later, on February 22, 1980, he was arraigned in Cause # 2028.[1] The case was tried seventeen (17) days afterward on March 10, 1980. Appellant argues the 270-day period under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-17-1 (Supp. 1980) runs from the date of the offense. His trial from date of arraignment was well within the 270-day period. We now consider whether or not appellant was prejudiced by the lapse of time from the date the crime was committed until trial. The question is governed by Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972), and Carlisle v. State, 393 So. 2d 1312 (Miss. 1981). In Carlisle, we said: The delay in the trial resulted from the fact that the grand jury was not in session when the crime was committed and because *1345 of a crowded docket. It was not an unreasonable delay in trial, appellant has not shown prejudice, and we find no merit in this contention. Did the indictment fail to properly charge appellant under Indictment # 2028? Appellant contends that the indictment in Cause # 2028 did not properly charge a violation of the habitual criminal statute. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-19-83 (1972) provides the following: In Usry v. State, 378 So. 2d 635 (Miss. 1979), the Court stated the procedure for indictments under the habitual criminal statute: The parts of the indictment pertinent to this contention follow: We are of the opinion that, contrary to the contention of appellant, the indictment correctly charged a violation of the habitual criminal statute. Did the court err in finding that appellant served a separate term of one (1) year or more on a crime of violence? The appellant admits that he served a year or more on two (2) of the previous convictions, but contends that the evidence does not indicate he served at least a year for murder, a crime of violence. However, the record reflects that he served the following time in the Mississippi State Penitentiary: The time served by appellant is three (3) years twenty-seven (27) days longer than that stated in his brief. Mr. B.C. Ruth, Custodian of the Records at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, testified concerning the time served as follows: The record reflects that appellant served the required time on his previous felony sentences and does not support the contention of appellant. The appellant argues that he was deprived of the right to a hearing before a jury of his peers during the habitual offender phase of the trial. This question was decided adversely to appellant in the recent case of Wilson v. State, 395 So. 2d 957 (Miss. 1981). He contends that Section 99-19-83, the habitual offender statute, violates his constitutional rights in that it inflicts cruel and unusual punishment upon him. Although the question was not raised in the trial court, and should not be considered here for the first time, it was decided against appellant's contention in Bell v. State, 355 So. 2d 1106 (Miss. 1978); White v. State, 374 So. 2d 843 (Miss. 1979), and Rummel *1347 v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 100 S. Ct. 1133, 63 L. Ed. 2d 382 (1980). We have considered the other assignments of error, and find that they are without merit. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and BOWLING, JJ., concur. HAWKINS, J., dissents. HAWKINS, Justice, dissenting: For the reasons heretofore stated in the dissenting opinion in Wilson v. State, 395 So. 2d 957 (Miss. 1981), I respectfully dissent to that portion of the opinion which denies to the accused the right of trial by jury to determine the factual issue of whether or not he is a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-19-83 (1972). [1] Appellant was charged with burglary and three (3) previous felony convictions as an habitual offender.