Opinion ID: 1745774
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: The introduction of an unconstitutional prior conviction against Cabello deprived him of his rights secured by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Text: Cabello contends that the trial judge improperly admitted evidence of his 1955 conviction for armed robbery during the sentencing phase of his trial, one of four aggravating circumstances found by the jury pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5) (Supp. 1987), claiming that it was exacted on an involuntary guilty plea without benefit of counsel. See, Sections I.(L) and IX. Cabello's failure to object at trial and/or to raise the issue on direct appeal constituted a waiver. Error is denied. § 99-39-21(1). [1] Parenthetically, even were the Court to hold that the trial judge was in error, when admitting the evidence, it would still affirm the conviction and sentence. See, Johnson, 511 So.2d at 1337 (Miss. 1987) ([T]he jury found three aggravating circumstances to support its verdict. Even if we conceded that the jury had no authority to consider this conviction, the remaining two aggravating circumstances were sufficient to support the jury's verdict.), Stringer v. State, 500 So.2d 928, 945 (Miss. 1986) ([W]here a death penalty is supported by several aggravating circumstances, the invalidity of one of those circumstances will not constitutionally impair the sentence.), Irving, 498 So.2d at 314 ([W]here the death penalty is based on more than one aggravating circumstance, invalidation of one may not invalidate the entire sentence.)