Michael Donald Huff v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-KA-00099-COA
MICHAEL DONALD HUFF
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
01/12/2001
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
HON. MARCUS D. GORDON
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LEAKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS JR.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
KEN TURNER
NATURE OF THE CASE:
CRIMINAL - FELONY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
CONVICTED OF COUNT I-MANUFACTURE OF
METHAMPHETAMINE; COUNT II- POSSESSION OF
PRECURSOR CHEMICALS WITH INTENT TO
MANUFACTURE METHAMPHETAMINES. SENTENCED
TO 18 YEARS FOR COUNT I AND 5 YEARS FOR
COUNT II IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO RUN
CONSECUTIVELY WITH COUNT I.
DISPOSITION:
AFFIRMED - 07/16/2002
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: 8/14/2002; denied 10/1/2002
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
10/22/2002
BEFORE KING, P.J., BRIDGES, MYERS, AND CHANDLER, JJ.
MYERS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Michael Donald Huff was tried and convicted of Count I, manufacture of methamphetamine and Count
II, possession of precursor chemicals with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine in the Circuit Court
of Leake County, Honorable Marcus D. Gordon presiding. Huff was sentenced to serve an eighteen year
sentence on Count I and a five year sentence on Count II in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections with the sentence for Count II to run consecutively to Count I. After being convicted, Huff filed
a motion for new trial which was denied by the trial court. From the denial of that motion, Huff appeals
asserting the following issues:
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO QUASH COUNT II OF
THE INDICTMENT ON THE BASIS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY;
2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING HUFF'S MOTION TO
SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF A SEARCH ON THE BASIS OF AN INSUFFICIENT
WARRANT; AND
3. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING HUFF'S MOTION TO
SUPPRESS HIS CONFESSION.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶2. Leake County deputies, Mark Wilcher and Michael Harper, obtained a search warrant for a secluded
location in Leake County. The search warrant was issued by Wilcher's mother, Justice Court Judge
Carolyn Wilcher Thomas. Wilcher testified that he had driven by the area in question and smelled an odd
odor. Wilcher also received information from a confidential informant that Huff had been gathering
precursors to manufacture methamphetamine. Judge Thomas issued a search warrant for the area described
by Wilcher finding that probable cause existed to search for the hidden drug laboratory. The search warrant
was executed and the hidden methamphetamine laboratory was discovered. The officers seized a
considerable amount of evidence including all the precursors to make methamphetamine. During the search
Huff and his partner, Marvin Gipson, were arrested on the scene.
¶3. After being arrested and before being read his rights, Huff commented that he was glad that he had
been caught and had been expecting law enforcement to apprehend him. The officers attempted to get Huff
to sign a waiver and talk to them about the crime. Huff refused to sign the waiver on two occasions but,
upon being requested to do so a third time, signed the waiver of rights form and made a voluntary verbal
statement to two officers. Huff refused to write his statement down or sign the officer's summary of his
statement. Huff was indicted on two counts, manufacture of a controlled substance and possession of
precursor chemicals and convicted on both counts. Huff was sentenced to serve an eighteen year sentence
on Count I and a five year sentence on Count II which is to run consecutively to Count I. Huff presented a
motion for new trial which the trial court summarily denied. From the denial of that motion, Huff perfected
this appeal.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO QUASH COUNT II OF
THE INDICTMENT ON THE BASIS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
¶4. Huff contends in his first point of error that the trial court erred when it failed to quash Count II of the
indictment on the basis of double jeopardy. "Double jeopardy protects against a second prosecution for the
same offense after acquittal, against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and against
multiple punishments for the same offense." Greenwood v. State, 744 So. 2d 767, 770 (¶14) (Miss. 1999)
. Huff raises the last of these concerns, multiple punishments for the same offense. We apply the same
elements test to determine whether Huff was subjected to double jeopardy. Id. The same elements test
inquires whether "each offense contains an element not contained in the other." Id. Huff was charged with
the manufacture of methamphetamine pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139(a)(1) (Rev. 2001), as
well as possession of precursor chemicals with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine pursuant to
Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-313(1)(a)(i) (Rev. 2001). Clearly, these statutes charge different crimes. The
State presented evidence that precursor chemicals were stored at the laboratory giving rise to the charge of
possession of precursor chemicals. The State also presented evidence that Huff had manufactured
methamphetamines giving rise to the manufacturing charge. Huff committed two separate offenses making
his claim that he was subjected to double jeopardy meritless.
2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING HUFF'S MOTION TO
SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF A SEARCH ON THE BASIS OF AN INSUFFICIENT
WARRANT.
¶5. Huff next contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the results of the
search because the warrant obtained by the authorities was defective. Huff contends that the indictment was
defective because the evidence presented to the justice court judge was insufficient to establish probable
cause. Huff contends that the justice court judge arbitrarily granted the search warrant because her son was
the officer who requested it.
¶6. When reviewing a judge's finding of probable cause, this Court does not make a de novo determination
but only looks to see whether there was a substantial basis for the judge's finding. McKinney v. State, 724
So. 2d 928, 931 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998). In order to issue a valid search warrant, the judge "is
required to make a 'practical, commonsense decision whether given all the circumstances set forth in the
affidavit before him, . . . there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a
particular place.'" Id. (quoting Smith v. State, 504 So. 2d 1194, 1195 (Miss. 1987)). Officer Wilcher
informed the judge, who is his mother, that he had driven by the area where he suspected that the
laboratory was hidden and detected a peculiar odor. The officer also informed the judge that he had
information from a confidential informant that Huff had purchased precursor chemicals. While there is an
appearance of impropriety due to the fact that the justice court judge was the mother of the law
enforcement officer seeking the search warrant, a substantial basis for the search warrant existed. This issue
is without merit.
3. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING HUFF'S MOTION TO
SUPPRESS HIS CONFESSION.
¶7. Huff's final point of error is that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the oral statement he made
admitting to manufacturing methamphetamine. The trial court determines whether a confession is admissible
and this Court will not reverse that determination unless the trial court "applied an incorrect legal standard,
committed manifest error, or the decision was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence."
Madere v. State, 794 So. 2d 200, 217 (¶65) (Miss. 2001). Huff does not contest whether his confession
was knowingly and voluntarily made. Huff contends that his confession should be suppressed because it
was a result of an illegal arrest because his arrest was based on the search warrant which he contends was
invalid. Having found that the judge had a substantial basis to find probable cause to grant the search
warrant and that the search warrant was valid renders Huff's argument moot. This issue is without merit.
CONCLUSION
¶8. The issues raised by Huff are without merit. Huff was not subjected to double jeopardy. The search
warrant was valid as the justice court judge had a substantial basis to find probable cause and grant the
warrant. Because the search warrant was validly granted by the justice court judge, Huff's resulting arrest
was legitimate as was the verbal statement he gave to law enforcement authorities.
¶9. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEAKE COUNTY OF CONVICTION
OF COUNT I MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETAMINE AND SENTENCE OF
EIGHTEEN YEARS; COUNT II POSSESSION OF PRECURSOR CHEMICALS WITH
INTENT TO MANUFACTURE METHAMPHETAMINE AND SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS
TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO SENTENCE IN COUNT I, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LEAKE COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
