Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FRANCISCO JAVIER CONTRERAS v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

FEBRUARY 15, 1984

FRANCISCO JAVIER CONTRERAS
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI



BEFORE WALKER, ROY NOBLE LEE and BOWLING

ROY NOBLE LEE, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

Francisco Javier Contreras was found guilty in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Honorable Ruble Griffin, presiding, on a charge of crime against nature, e.g., unnatural intercourse, and was sentenced to ten (10) years in custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. He has appealed to this Court and assigns eight errors in the trial below.

I.

 Was the statute under which appellant was convicted so vague, indefinite and uncertain that it denied appellant certain knowledge of the acts which are proscribed?

 Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted under Mississippi Code Annotated 97-29-59 (1972) which provides the following:

 Every person who shall be convicted of the detestible and abominable crime against nature

 committed with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not more than ten years.

 Appellant contends that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and relies upon the Florida case of Franklin v. State, 257 So.2d 21 (Fla. 1971), wherein the Supreme Court of Florida declared a similar statute unconstitutional for vagueness.

 Although appellant did not raise the question in the lower court, and, for that reason, it should not be considered here, we simply answer the point by referring to State v. Mays, 329 So.2d 65 (Miss. 1976), where the exact question was decided by this Court and the statute was held to be constitutional. See also Davis v. State, 367 So.2d 445 (Miss. 1979).

 II.

 Does the statute under which appellant was convicted unfairly discriminate against him in that it is applied to the punishment of males only, thereby denying him equal protection under the law?

 This assignment of error follows Assignment I. We reject the contention of appellant on the authority of State v. Mays, supra, and Davis v. State, supra. See also Callahan v. State, 419 So.2d 165 (Miss. 1982).

 III.

 Did the lower court err in overruling the appellant's motion for mental ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.