 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bufkin v. State3/9/2004
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
. Ruby Bufkin, having been convicted and sentenced for felony shoplifting, has appealed her conviction to this Court. She contends that the trial court committed reversible error in permitting the jury to learn of her prior shoplifting convictions during the prosecution's case-in-chief. She further contends that one of the prior incidents of shoplifting relied upon by the State to raise the level of the offense to a felony occurred outside the statutory period, thus reducing her conviction to a misdemeanor offense. We find these issues to be without merit and affirm the conviction.
. In this appeal, Bufkin does not directly challenge the jury's finding that she actually committed the act of shoplifting that forms the underlying basis for the indictment. Therefore, it is unnecessary to review the proof as to these elements of the crime. We will, rather, proceed directly to the issues presented in the appeal.
I. Considerations of Time in the Matter of Inclusion of Prior Convictions
. In order to constitute felony shoplifting, the State must show that the conviction was "a third or subsequent shoplifting conviction." Miss. Code Ann. 97-23-93(6) (Supp. 2003). That provision of the code further provides as follows:
In determining the number of prior shoplifting convictions for purposes of imposing punishment under this section, the court shall disregard all such convictions occurring more than seven (7) years prior to the shoplifting offense in question. Miss. Code Ann. 97-23-93(8) (Supp. 2003).
. The State presented evidence of two prior shoplifting convictions. Bufkin maintains that the timing of the earlier conviction was such as to put it outside the seven-year window of subsection (8), thus reducing the offense to a misdemeanor punishable under Section 97-23-93(5)(b) of the Mississippi Code.
. For purposes of our analysis of this issue, we proceed on the basis that the following facts regarding potentially relevant dates are not in dispute: (a) The date of the occurrence giving rise to the earlier conviction cannot be determined from the record. (b) The date of conviction for that offense is May 31, 1995. (c) The date of the occurrence giving rise to the present charge is January 18, 2002. (d) The date of conviction for the present charge is November 14, 2002.
. Bufkin argues that the statute declares the dates of prior convictions as the appropriate commencement date to determine whether a particular previous offense may be an element of felony shoplifting; therefore, it is only appropriate to use the date of conviction as to the last occurrence in defining the end of the seven-year period. Under Bufkin's analysis, any shoplifting conviction occurring before November 14, 1995, would be excluded from consideration under Section 97-23-93(8).
. The State counters with the argument that appropriate computation is to calculate backward from the date of the last occurrence giving rise to the charge. Since the alleged shoplifting incident leading to this indictment occurred on January 18, 2002, the conviction obtained in May 31, 1995, is well within the applicable seven-year period.
. In interpreting statutory enactments, one of the fundamental rules of construction is that words shall be given "their common and ordinary acceptation and meaning." Miss.Code Ann. 1-3-65 (Rev. 1998); Tower Loan of Miss., Inc. v. Miss. State Tax Comm'n , 662 So. 2d 1077, 1083 (Miss. 1995). It is in that light that we review this issue, which, under the facts of this case, presents a pure question of law.
. Th
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|