Victor Grant v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 96-KA-00790 COA
VICTOR GRANT A/K/A VICTOR L. GRANT A/K/A
VICTOR LEROY GRANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
PER CURIAM AFFIRMANCE MEMORANDUM OPINION
THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED,
PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B
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:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
06/24/96
HON. ROBERT LEWIS GIBBS
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
DAN W. DUGGAN, JR.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEWITT T. ALLRED III
THOMAS MAYFIELD
CRIMINAL - FELONY
COUNT I POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO
DISTRIBUTE, COUNT II CONSPIRACY TO
DISTRIBUTE A CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE, SENTENCED AS A
HABITUAL OFFENDER TO SERVE THIRTY
YEARS ON COUNT I AND TWENTY YEARS
ON COUNT II, TO RUN CONSECUTIVE TO
SENTENCE IN COUNT I
AFFIRMED - 12/2/97
12/23/97
BEFORE BRIDGES, C.J., PAYNE, AND SOUTHWICK, JJ.
PER CURIAM:
This case arises from an appeal from the second trial of Victor Grant in which he was convicted in
count I for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and in count II for conspiracy to distribute
cocaine.(1) In this second trial, Grant was convicted of both charges and sentenced as a habitual
offender to serve a term of thirty (30) years for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and a
term of twenty (20) years for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The sentences are to run consecutively
and are to be served in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. On appeal, Grant
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in both charges. Finding the evidence to be sufficient, we
affirm.
FACTS
In September of 1992, Detective Alvaline Baggett was engaged in making undercover buys of
narcotics for the Jackson Police Department. Detective Baggett testified that she had come to know
Grant through her undercover work and had learned that his nickname was "Master." On September
1, 1992, Detective Baggett, having obtained Grant's pager number, paged Grant and keyed in the
phone number for him to return her call and the figure 575 representing the dollar amount of cocaine
she wished to buy. Shortly thereafter, Grant called the number left by Detective Baggett. Baggett
testified that she told the caller that she wanted to speak to the "Master," and the caller said, "This is
him." Baggett testified that she recognized the caller's voice as being that of Victor Grant on the basis
of her previous conversations with him. Baggett stated that she told Grant that she wanted to buy
half an ounce of cocaine for $575 and asked him to bring it to her at the Meadowbrook Cinema 6.
Shortly thereafter, Grant and Timothy Harris arrived in the parking lot. Grant let Harris out and then
parked the car and went into the drug store. Baggett indicated that she arrested Harris and then
arrested Grant when he came out of the drug store. Baggett testified that Harris was found to be in
possession of a cookie (approximately one-half ounce) of crack cocaine and Grant was found to be in
possession of a pager. Baggett testified that the pager still displayed the number she had keyed in
when she paged Grant as well as the number 575.
ANALYSIS
I. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A GUILTY VERDICT
FOR BOTH POSSESSION WITH INTENT AND CONSPIRACY TO SELL.
Directed verdict and JNOV motions challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence. McClain v. State,
625 So. 2d 774, 781 (Miss. 1993). With regard to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, all credible
evidence consistent with the defendant's guilt must be accepted as true and the prosecution must be
given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Id. This
Court is authorized to reverse only where, with respect to one or more of the elements of the offense
charged, the evidence so considered is such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the
accused not guilty. Wetz v. State, 503 So. 2d 803, 808 (Miss. 1987).
Grant first argues that the State failed to prove the charge of conspiracy because the State presented
no evidence that Grant and Harris expressly entered into an agreement to sell cocaine. This argument
fails because the law clearly states that "[a] formal or express agreement is not required to prove a
conspiracy; a conspiracy may be proven by the acts and conduct of the alleged conspirators."
Johnson v. State, 642 So. 2d 924, 928 (Miss. 1994). "[I]t is sufficient when the evidence reveals,
from all the facts and circumstances, together with the acts of the parties, a common design or
understood purpose between the parties to commit the crime." Davis v. State, 485 So. 2d 1055,
1058 (Miss. 1986).
Grant next argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of possession of
cocaine with intent to distribute. Grant bases his argument on the fact that the State could not prove
that Grant was either in actual possession or constructive possession of the cocaine. The State
correctly argues that its proof that Grant was an accessory to Harris's actual, physical possession of
the cocaine was sufficient to warrant the conviction. "It is settled law that substantial knowing
participation in the consummation of a sale or in arranging for the illegal sale of unlawful controlled
substances may render one guilty of such sale and that one who aids and abets another in such a
context is guilty as a principal." Clemons v. State, 482 So. 2d 1102, 1104-05 (Miss. 1985); see also
Turner v. State, 573 So. 2d 1340, 1342 (Miss. 1990) (holding that the prosecution does not have to
prove that a defendant had dominion or control over the cocaine in order to prove him guilty as an
accessory before the fact and thus guilty as a principal).
Having reviewed the record, we find that there was sufficient evidence to prove Grant guilty of both
charges. We therefore affirm the decision of the circuit court.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION IN
COUNT I FOR POSSESSION OF COCAINE WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE AND IN
COUNT II FOR CONSPIRACY TO DISTRIBUTE COCAINE AND SENTENCES AS A
HABITUAL OFFENDER OF THIRTY (30) YEARS IN COUNT I AND TWENTY (20)
YEARS IN COUNT II WITH THE SENTENCES TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY IN
THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED
AND THE CIRCUIT COURT IS INSTRUCTED TO CORRECT THE SENTENCING ORDER
TO REFLECT THE JURY'S VERDICT OF GUILTY IN COUNT II OF CONSPIRACY TO
DISTRIBUTE COCAINE. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE TAXED TO HINDS
COUNTY.
BRIDGES, C.J., McMILLIN AND THOMAS, P.JJ., COLEMAN, DIAZ, HERRING,
HINKEBEIN, KING, PAYNE, AND SOUTHWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
1. This case was originally tried in May of 1993 and this Court on November 28, 1995 reversed
Grant's convictions and remanded the case for a new trial on the ground that Grant was denied
his right to counsel at the first trial. Please note that in our opinion styled Victor L. Grant v.
State of Mississippi, No. 93-KA-00650 COA, we mistakenly stated that Grant had been
sentenced to serve thirty (30) years in prison for possession of cocaine and twenty (20) years
for the sale of cocaine. Our opinion should have stated that Grant was sentenced to thirty (30)
years for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and twenty (20) years for conspiracy to
distribute cocaine. On remand, Grant was properly tried for possession of cocaine with intent to
distribute and conspiracy to distribute cocaine.
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.
