Ray Charles Lenoir a/k/a Ray Lenoir a/k/a Kool Ray v. State of Mississippi

Summary

The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed Ray Charles Lenoir's convictions for trafficking methamphetamine and possessing cocaine. The court rejected challenges to the search warrant, the absence of a constructive-possession jury instruction, the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, the trafficking indictment, and the amendment of the sentence for the cocaine conviction. The court held that probable cause supported the warrant or, alternatively, that the good-faith exception applied, and that the evidence established constructive possession.

Holdings

1. The search warrant was supported by probable cause because the affidavit described a controlled purchase of methamphetamine from Lenoir at the residence, giving the issuing judge a substantial basis to find a fair probability that contraband would be found there. The denial of the motion to suppress was proper; alternatively, the good-faith exception would prevent application of the exclusionary rule.
2. The trial court did not commit reversible or plain error by failing to give a separate constructive-possession instruction because the jury was instructed on the essential elements of possession—knowledge and possession—and the manner of possession, actual or constructive, is not itself an essential element under the statute.
3. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Lenoir constructively possessed the methamphetamine and cocaine.
4. The verdicts were not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a new trial.
5. Count I adequately charged trafficking methamphetamine because it identified the applicable statutory provisions, the Schedule II controlled substance, and the quantity of thirty grams or more.
6. The amendment of Lenoir's Count II sentence to add five years of post-release supervision did not violate double jeopardy because the circuit court amended the sentence during the same term of court and acted within its inherent authority to alter the sentence before the term expired.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause and whether the trial court erred by denying suppression of the drugs and other evidence.
2. Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to give a separate constructive-possession jury instruction.
3. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove Lenoir constructively possessed the controlled substances.
4. Whether the jury's verdicts were against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
5. Whether Count I of the indictment adequately charged trafficking methamphetamine.
6. Whether the trial court's amendment of Lenoir's Count II sentence during the same term of court violated double jeopardy.

Disposition

affirmed