Gregory Linson v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-KA-00613-COA
GREGORY LINSON
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
02/20/2008
HON. R.I. PRICHARD III
PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JUSTIN T. COOK
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: STEPHANIE B. WOOD
HALDON J. KITTRELL
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF SALE OF A
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND
SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL
OFFENDER TO SIXTY YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR
PROBATION
AFFIRMED: 05/26/2009
BEFORE LEE, P.J., GRIFFIS AND CARLTON, JJ.
GRIFFIS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Gregory Linson was convicted of selling a controlled substance, cocaine, in violation
of Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-139(a)(1) (Rev. 2005). Linson was sentenced
as a second and subsequent offender under section 41-29-147 (Rev. 2005) and a habitual
offender under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2007), to serve sixty
years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections without eligibility for
parole or probation. The trial court sentenced Linson as a second and subsequent offender
based upon his previous conviction of conspiracy to sell a Schedule IV controlled substance.
Linson now appeals and argues that the trial court erred when it sentenced him as a second
and subsequent offender because conspiracy does not qualify as a prior conviction under
section 41-29-147.
¶2.
We are presented with a question of statutory interpretation, which is a question of
law. Therefore, the standard of review in this case is de novo. Russell v. Performance
Toyota, Inc., 826 So. 2d 719, 721 (¶5) (Miss. 2002).
¶3.
Linson claims that his conviction for the sale of cocaine is not a second or subsequent
offense under section 41-29-147 because his prior conviction for conspiracy was not a
criminal violation under Article III of the Uniform Controlled Substances Law. The State
responds that: (1) Linson is procedurally barred from raising this issue because there was no
contemporaneous objection made during the sentencing phase of his trial, nor was it raised
in his motion for a new trial, and (2) his sentence is legal.
¶4.
First, we recognize that Linson neither raised this issue at trial nor in his motion for
a new trial. During the sentencing phase of the trial, the court asked Linson’s counsel the
following about Linson’s certified order of conviction for conspiracy to sell a controlled
substance:
The Court:
Mr. Price, any objection to the Court accepting that into
2
evidence on the second subsequent offender?
Mr. Price:
Not other, Your Honor, than our earlier stated objection as to the
timeliness of the amendment of the indictment.
Linson did not raise this issue in the trial court and presents it for the first time on appeal.
Therefore, we find that it is procedurally barred. Connell v. State, 691 So. 2d 1004, 1007
(Miss. 1997); Patterson v. State, 594 So. 2d 606, 609 (Miss. 1992).
¶5.
Notwithstanding the procedural bar, this issue is without merit. Linson argues that:
(1) conspiracy is not a drug crime under 41-29-147, and (2) conspiracy is an inchoate crime
and is distinct from the crime contemplated by the conspiracy.
¶6.
Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-147 reads:
Except as otherwise provided in Section 41-29-142, any person convicted of
a second or subsequent offense under this article may be imprisoned for a term
up to twice the term otherwise authorized, fined an amount up to twice that
otherwise authorized, or both.
For purposes of this section, an offense is considered a second or subsequent
offense, if, prior to his conviction of the offense, the offender has at any time
been convicted under this article or under any statute of the United States or
of any state relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana, depressant, stimulant or
hallucinogenic drugs.
¶7.
Linson argues that the second paragraph of section 41-29-147 sets forth the relevant
convictions in other jurisdictions which may be considered for the purposes of enhancement.
However, section 41-29-147 plainly states that if the offender has at any time prior to this
offense been convicted “under any statute . . . of any state relating to narcotic drugs,
marihuana, depressant, stimulant or hallucinogenic drugs” then this is a second or subsequent
offense. The statute does not say convicted under any statute of any other state. Linson’s
3
argument is without merit.
¶8.
Linson also argues that conspiracy is a separate and distinct crime from the crime
contemplated by the conspiracy. Under section 41-29-147, the prior conviction has to stem
from a statute that relates to narcotic drugs. Linson was convicted under Mississippi Code
Annotated section 97-1-1 (Supp. 2008) for conspiracy to sell a Schedule IV controlled
substance. By the very nature of conspiracy, there is a conspiracy to commit an act. If that
act relates to “narcotic drugs, marihuana, depressant, stimulant or hallucinogenic drugs,” then
conviction under section 97-1-1 relates to “narcotic drugs, marihuana, depressant, stimulant
or hallucinogenic drugs” and can be considered as a sentence enhancement under section 4129-147. Linson’s argument lacks merit.
¶9.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONVICTION OF SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCE AS
A HABITUAL OFFENDER OF SIXTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR
PAROLE OR PROBATION IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO PEARL RIVER COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.