Rodney Daryl Reed v. State of Mississippi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: May 7, 2024
• Docket: 2023-KA-00248-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2023-KA-00248-COA

RODNEY DARYL REED APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/10/2023 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DAL WILLIAMSON COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: GEORGE T. HOLMES ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ASHLEY LAUREN SULSER DISTRICT ATTORNEY: ANTHONY J. BUCKLEY NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 05/07/2024 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., WESTBROOKS AND EMFINGER, JJ.

EMFINGER, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. On February 6, 2023, a Jones County Circuit Court jury found Rodney Daryl Reed

guilty of possession of hydrocodone/acetaminophen (more than two grams but less than ten

grams) in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-139 (Rev. 2018). The

circuit court sentenced Reed to eight years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of

Corrections, with six years to serve and two years suspended, and fined him $7,500. After

the denial of his post-trial motion, Reed appealed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On October 30, 2020, Investigator Jake Driskell, who ran the narcotics division for the Jones County Sheriff’s Office, received information from what he described as a credible

informant that Reed was dealing heroin from his home, which was located in the city limits

of Laurel, Mississippi. As a result of that information, Driskell started surveillance at Reed’s

address of 1706 Airport Drive. The surveillance on Reed continued for about three or four

days. During that time, law enforcement officers would pass by Reed’s residence looking for

known drug users or dealers coming and going from the residence. Driskell explained that

once they receive information from an informant, they then attempt to independently

corroborate the informant’s information. According to Driskell, they observed lots of traffic

coming and going from Reed’s residence. Everyone stayed for just a few minutes and then

left. Driskell testified that behavior was consistent with drugs being sold from the residence.

They also saw Reed walk out to vehicles stopped in the road and engage in “hand-to-hand

transaction of something.”

¶3. On Tuesday, November 3, 2020, Driskell received information from the same

informant that Reed was leaving his house with a bag of heroin in the car with him. Once

Driskell got that information, he called Captain Vince Williams, also with the Jones County

Sheriff’s Office, to confirm that he was in the area. They found Reed’s car parked at a

business a few blocks from his residence and noted that Reed’s tag was expired. As a result,

they made a traffic stop of Reed’s vehicle on Lee Street near 16th Avenue in Laurel. Driskell

and Williams were in separate vehicles but conducted the stop together. Driskell approached

the driver’s side to speak to Reed. He testified that Reed was acting “excessively nervous.”

When Driskell asked Reed if there was anything illegal in the vehicle, Reed said no and gave

2 Driskell consent to search his vehicle. Driskell testified that he asked Reed if he was sure and

reminded him that he had the right to refuse the search. At that point, Driskell got Reed out

of the vehicle and “passed him off to Captain Williams,” who took Reed to the back of the

vehicle where Williams issued traffic citations. During his search of the vehicle, Driskell

noticed a plastic “grocery store-style” bag under the driver’s seat. When he opened the bag,

Driskell discovered “rectangle tin foil packs,” which is how Driskell testified they were

identified in the “narcotics world.” Since Driskell believed the packs were possibly heroin

or fentanyl, he did not touch them again, secured the bag, and placed it into another bag to

be sent to the Mississippi Crime Laboratory for evaluation.1

¶4. Driskell immediately placed Reed under arrest and transported him to the Jones

County jail. The evidence was taken to the sheriff’s office, logged into evidence, and later

sent to the crime lab for analysis. Keith McMahan, who is employed at the crime lab, testified

at trial as an expert in the field of forensic drug analysis that a portion of the substance

recovered from Reed’s vehicle was tested and found to be 2.173 grams of hydrocodone and

acetaminophen.

¶5. At trial, the jury heard the testimony of Driskell, Williams, and McMahan and found

Reed guilty of possessing more than two grams but less than ten grams of hydrocodone and

acetaminophen, a Schedule II controlled substance. Reed was sentenced, and he appealed.

ANALYSIS

¶6. Reed’s appellate counsel filed a brief in compliance with Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d

1 Driskell explained that heroin and fentanyl can be absorbed through the skin, so it is commonly packaged in that manner so the person handling it is not accidentally exposed.

3 743 (Miss. 2005),2 representing to this Court that after a diligent search of the record, no

arguable issues for appellate review were identified, and that he found no “errors which were

ultimately prejudicial to Mr. Reed.” Counsel requested Reed be granted an additional forty

days within which to file any pro se brief. By our order dated September 21, 2023, this Court

granted Reed an additional forty days to file a pro se supplemental brief; however, Reed did

not file a supplemental brief.

¶7. We have conducted an independent and thorough review of the record in this case. We

find there is legally sufficient evidence to support Reed’s conviction. Further, we find no

issues that warrant reversal of Reed’s conviction or sentence. See Jackson v. State, 335 So.

3d 620, 623 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022).

¶8. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY AND SMITH, JJ., CONCUR.

2 In Powe v. State, 366 So. 3d 944, 945 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023), we explained:

Lindsey establishes the “procedure to govern cases where appellate counsel represents an indigent criminal defendant and does not believe his or her client’s case presents any arguable issues on appeal[.]” Lindsey, 939 So. 2d at 748 (¶18).