Opinion ID: 1834364
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Was the State's Attempt to Switch from Section 99-19-83 to 99-19-81 Improper?

Text: The discussion in the immediately preceding assignment of error sets out the facts applicable to this assignment and for that reason will not be reiterated herein. Based on the discussion in Assignment VI it is apparent that the State did not attempt to switch from § 99-19-83 to § 99-19-81; it actually occurred; therefore, the appropriate heading for this assignment would be: Was the State's Switch from Section 99-19-83 to 99-19-81 Improper? Handley contends that the change from § 99-19-83 to § 99-19-81 was improper for several reasons: (1) no formal amendment request for the amendment, nor order allowing the amendment, appears in the record; (2) he had no notice of the proposed amendment; (3) the amendment took him by surprise and did not allow him adequate opportunity to prepare for the hearing; (4) the amendment was of substance rather than form; (5) the amendment constituted a denial of due process. Additionally, even though Handley concedes that it was not necessary for the State to specify which habitual offender section it was traveling under, citing to Ellis v. State, 469 So.2d 1256 (Miss. 1985), he argues that the indictment did not contain a reference to the specific habitual offender statute the State was traveling under and therefore, he was unable to `glean' from the indictment that which he must defend against. (emphasis in original). Handley also concedes that the record is absent of any objection appearing specifically to objecting to proceeding under 99-19-81.
This Court has repeatedly held that contemporaneous objection is necessary to preserve the right to raise an error on appeal. Singleton v. State, 518 So.2d 653, 655 (Miss. 1988) and cases cited therein. See also Livingston v. State, 525 So.2d 1300, 1307 (Miss. 1988); Monk v. State, 532 So.2d 592, 600 (Miss. 1988); Lanier v. State, 533 So.2d 473, 478 (Miss. 1988); Gray v. State, 487 So.2d 1304, 1312 (Miss. 1986); Messer v. State, 483 So.2d 338, 340 (Miss. 1986); Shavers v. State, 455 So.2d 1299, 1302 (Miss. 1984). Handley concedes the lack of contemporaneous objection to the trial court's allowance of an amendment from § 99-19-83 to § 99-19-81 in his brief. Accordingly, we find that Handley is procedurally barred from raising this assignment of error.