Doyle Ray Middleton, Jr. a/k/a Doyle Middleton a/k/a Doyle Ray Middleton a/k/a Doyle Middleton, Jr. v. State of Mississippi

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Decided: February 13, 2025
• Docket: 2024-IA-00144-SCT
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2024-IA-00144-SCT

DOYLE RAY MIDDLETON, JR., a/k/a DOYLE MIDDLETON a/k/a DOYLE RAY MIDDLETON a/k/a DOYLE MIDDLETON, JR.

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/23/2024 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MATTHEW GORDON SULLIVAN TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: COREY DANIEL GIBSON AMMIE THI NGUYEN JAD JAMAL KHALAF CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS HENNIS CHRISTOPHER RANDALL PURDUM COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: SIMPSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JAD JAMAL KHALAF AMMIE THI NGUYEN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: CHRISTOPHER RANDALL PURDUM DISTRICT ATTORNEY: CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS HENNIS NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED - 02/13/2025 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE KING, P.J., CHAMBERLIN AND SULLIVAN, JJ.

CHAMBERLIN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. This case is before the Court on interlocutory appeal. Doyle Middleton, Jr., seeks

relief from the denial of his motion to dismiss his felony indictment on the basis of double

jeopardy. Middleton has not been placed in double jeopardy because he has not sufficiently

proved a prior conviction for the same offense. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial

of Middleton’s motion to dismiss. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On July 9, 2022, Officer Cody Moulds of the Magee Police Department made a traffic

stop of a motorcycle with no tag. Officer Moulds asked the driver for his license, but the

driver only had a state ID card identifying him as Doyle Ray Middleton, Jr. Officer Moulds

asked Middleton if he had anything illegal and if he could search his person. Middleton

replied that he did not have anything illegal and consented to the search. Officer Moulds

found a “baggy containing a crystal-like substance” when he searched Middleton. Officer

Moulds issued Middleton two tickets, one for an expired tag and another for misdemeanor

possession of a controlled substance. Officer Moulds took Middleton into custody.

¶3. According to the State, Officer Moulds placed the bag with the crystal-like substance

into the evidence vault. Investigator Josh Bryant later observed the bag and determined that

it contained a felony amount of narcotics, and he sent it to the crime lab for testing on July

14, 2022.

¶4. Meanwhile, the clerk had placed the tickets on the docket at the Magee Municipal

Court. According to the “Court Case Report” from the Magee Municipal Court, Middleton

was given a court date of August 2, 2022, for the tickets. Middleton failed to appear on his

court date, and the clerk of the court sent him two form letters on August 8, 2022. The letters

stated that the court was holding tickets against him for possession of a controlled substance

and an expired tag. The form letters further stated that the court had determined fines in the

amount of $649 and $216 for each respective ticket and that “a Bench Warrant [would] be

issued by the Court for [Middleton’s] arrest if the amount [was] not received by the Court

2 within 90 days[.]”

¶5. The “Court Case Report” indicates that Middleton failed to appear or pay the fines by

January 24, 2023, so the court issued another form letter to Middleton to notify him of the

suspension of his license. The court also issued a bench warrant for Middleton’s failure to

appear. Finally, the “Court Case Report” indicates that on September 12, 2023, a disposition

to hold the expired tag case in abeyance was entered. There is not a similar disposition entry

in the “Court Case Report” for Middleton’s case number associated with the possession of

a controlled substance.

¶6. On September 5, 2023, a Simpson County grand jury indicted Middleton for felony

possession of methamphetamine in violation of Mississippi Code Section 41-29-139(c)(1)(C)

(Supp. 2022). The date the offense occurred was identified as July 9, 2022, the same day that

Middleton was stopped by Officer Moulds. On November 16, 2023, Middleton filed a motion

to dismiss the indictment on the basis of double jeopardy. Middleton argued that the

municipal court had already found him guilty of misdemeanor possession of a controlled

substance; therefore, he could not be indicted for the greater offense of felony possession for

the same crime because it constituted double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment

to the United States Constitution as well as the Mississippi Constitution. On January 22,

2024, the circuit court held a hearing on Middleton’s motion to dismiss and denied the

motion. The judge found that the municipal court had never found Middleton guilty of an

offense, so double jeopardy had not attached.

¶7. Middleton sought permission to file an interlocutory appeal in this Court. This Court

3 granted Middleton’s petition for interlocutory appeal on February 27, 2024.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶8. “We apply a de novo standard of review to claims of double jeopardy.” Kelly v. State,

80 So. 3d 802, 804 (Miss. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Boyd v. State,

977 So. 2d 329, 334 (Miss. 2008)). “[A] conviction can withstand [a] double-jeopardy

analysis only if each offense contains an element not contained in the other.” Id. (alterations

in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Boyd, 977 So. 2d at 334).

DISCUSSION

¶9. Middleton argues that the felony indictment violates his Fifth Amendment protection

against double jeopardy and that it should be dismissed with prejudice. The prohibition

against double jeopardy “assures three separate protections: (1) protection from a second

prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) protection from a second prosecution for

the same offense after conviction, and (3) protection from multiple punishments for the same

offense.” Kelly, 80 So. 3d at 805 (citing United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 695-96, 113

S. Ct. 2849, 125 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1993)). Middleton argues that his felony indictment

constitutes a second prosecution for the same offense after a conviction.

¶10. Middleton relies on Bennett v. State, 528 So. 2d 815 (Miss. 1988), for his argument

that double jeopardy attached. In that case, Bennett, while driving under the influence, was

involved in a car crash that resulted in serious injuries to the driver of the other vehicle. Id.

at 816. The same day, Bennett was charged with “misdemeanor driving under the influence

of alcohol and driving with a suspended driver’s license[.]” Id. Bennett was arrested and

4 posted bail in the amount of six hundred dollars. Id. at 816, 819. He was later found guilty

in absentia of both charges, forfeiting his bail for his failure to appear. Id. Around one month

later, “a felony warrant was issued for Bennett charging him with ‘permanently disfiguring

or maiming the body of Jackie A. Gault in an automobile accident while driving under the

influence of alcohol.’” Id. at 816. Bennett was indicted and convicted for the felony charge,

and he appealed on the basis of double jeopardy. Id. at 817. This Court agreed that double

jeopardy had indeed attached, holding that “[w]ith the forfeiture of this money, a sentence

of guilty was entered into the docket and this constitutes a conviction of the misdemeanor

charge of driving under the influence. . . . Therefore, Mr. Bennett’s misdemeanor conviction

bars the subsequent trial for felonious D.U.I.” Id. at 819 (citing Thigpen v. Roberts, 468 U.S.

27, 104 S. Ct. 2916, 82 L. Ed. 2d 23 (1984)).

¶11. Middleton argues that he “was found guilty . . . when the Municipal Court determined

that the fine for possession of a controlled substance . . . would be $649.00.” Because the

misdemeanor charge of possession of a controlled substance is a lesser-included offense of

felony possession of methamphetamine, Middleton argues that he cannot now be charged

with and convicted of felony possession because double jeopardy attached. See Bennett, 528

So. 2d at 819 (quoting Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 421, 100 S. Ct. 2260, 65 L. Ed. 2d 228

(1980)).

¶12. In response, the State argues that Middleton was not found guilty and convicted by

the municipal court because it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a case for felonious

possession of methamphetamine. The State argues that the circuit court has sole jurisdiction

5 to hear felony cases, so even if Middleton was convicted in the municipal court, that

conviction would not trigger double jeopardy since the municipal court lacked jurisdiction

to adjudicate the case.

¶13. The State likens this case to Levario v. State, 90 So. 3d 608 (Miss. 2012). In that

case, Levario, the defendant, was involved in a car crash resulting in the death of another

person. Id. at 609. Levario was issued a traffic ticket at the scene for driving under the

influence. Id. Two days later, Levario was also charged with felony DUI Causing Death. Id.

at 609-10. Levario pled not guilty to the felony charge and was convicted of felony DUI in

justice court. Id. at 610. The justice court ordered Levario to pay a fine and attend remedial

classes for alcohol safety education. Id. A few months later, the State filed a motion to set

aside Levario’s conviction in the justice court, “arguing that the justice court had no

jurisdiction to accept Levario’s guilty plea on the charge of felony DUI Causing Death.” Id.

The justice court subsequently set aside the conviction, and Levario was indicted for felony

DUI Causing Death in the circuit court. Id. Levario’s motion to dismiss the indictment based

on double jeopardy was denied, and he appealed. Id. Noting that the justice court lacked

jurisdiction over felony charges, this Court held that Levario could not have been placed in

double jeopardy from a conviction in a court that lacked jurisdiction over the charge. Id. at

611 (quoting Watts v. State, 78 So. 3d 901, 903 (Miss. 2012)). Therefore, double jeopardy

had not attached, and the State was free to pursue the felony indictment in the circuit court.

Id. at 612.

¶14. The State argues that the municipal court in this case, like the justice court in Levario,

6 lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a charge of felony possession. Therefore, the State argues,

any conviction from the municipal court would have been void since the alleged crime was

felonious; thus, the municipal court lacked jurisdiction. Middleton, however, was never

charged with a felony in the municipal court, and the municipal court only addressed

misdemeanor charges: possession of a controlled substance and driving with an expired tag.

The municipal court had jurisdiction over the charges from the traffic tickets that were

submitted to it. See Miss. Code Ann. § 21-23-7(1) (Supp. 2024). Further, Middleton’s charge

for felony possession was never before the municipal court, nor was it ever adjudicated by

the municipal court. The State’s reliance on Levario is misplaced.

¶15. Although the municipal court had jurisdiction over the traffic ticket charges, no

evidence in the record demonstrates that Middleton was convicted for the misdemeanor

possession for double jeopardy to attach in this case. Middleton asserts that the form letter

he received from the municipal court stating the determined amount of the fine for his

misdemeanor possession charge constituted a conviction in absentia, thereby analogizing his

case to Bennett. There is no evidence, however, that Middleton ever paid this fine or that the

determination of the amount of the fine constituted a conviction for the misdemeanor

possession charge. Nor is there any disposition indicating a conviction in the record. It is also

worthy to note that, pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 10.1(b)(2)(B),

Middleton could not waive his right to be present at the proceedings because the potential

punishment for misdemeanor possession included jail time. See Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-

139(c)(1)(A) (Supp. 2022). Therefore, the court could not adjudicate Middleton’s case in his

7 absence.

¶16. “Under the plain wording of Article 3, § 22, in order for this state’s Double Jeopardy

Clause to apply the accused must first suffer an actual acquittal or conviction on the merits

of the offense.” State v. Fleming, 726 So. 2d 113, 115 (Miss. 1998). In the present case, no

evidence was presented that the municipal court acquitted or convicted Middleton of

misdemeanor possession. Middleton is mistaken in asserting that the letter informing him of

the fine amount to clear the charge and avoid a warrant for failure to appear constitutes

sufficient proof of a conviction. The letter did not adjudicate Middleton guilty; instead, it

simply identified the amount of money he could pay to settle the ticket. Furthermore, the

“Court Case Report” only recorded “dispositions” for the case when the court sent Middleton

the letter informing him of the fine amount, followed by a “failure to appear” and “warrant

issued” on January 24, 2023. It never listed a guilty disposition, nor did it ever indicate

Middleton paid any fine. Therefore, Middleton has failed to present “a prima facie

nonfrivolous claim” of a prior conviction for the same offense that would bar his current

felony indictment under double jeopardy. United States v. Stricklin, 591 F.2d 1112, 1117-18

(5th Cir. 1979) (holding that a defendant must first present a prima facie nonfrivolous claim

of double jeopardy before the burden shifts to the government to show “that the indictments

charge separate crimes”); United States v. Rabhan, 628 F.3d 200, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2010).

CONCLUSION

¶17. Middleton has not been placed in double jeopardy because he has failed to present

evidence of a conviction for possession of a controlled substance by the municipal court.

8 Therefore, the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss is affirmed.

¶18. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

RANDOLPH, C.J., KING AND COLEMAN, P.JJ., MAXWELL, ISHEE, GRIFFIS, SULLIVAN AND BRANNING, JJ., CONCUR.