Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hensley v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Decided July 15, 2014No. 2013-CA-00762-COAPublished

1ConcurrenceMaxwell, J.

¶21. I agree Hensley had sufficient notice of the State’s intent to seek an enhanced sentence. The notice require*352ment was satisfied when the prosecutor delivered copies of the State’s proposed motion to amend the indictment, along with Hensley’s three qualifying convictions, to Hensley’s counsel twelve days before trial. And as the majority points out, Justice Chandler, writing for a unanimous supreme court — albeit addressing a slightly different challenge to Hensley’s enhanced sentence — has already emphasized the motion to deem Hensley a habitual offender was “timely ” filed by the State.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Griffith v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Beard v. BanksSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  5. Beard v. BanksSupreme Court of the United States · 2004

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API