Smith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CP-00496-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-23-2004 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Sentence for escape - Section 97-9-49 (1) - Section 97-9-49 (2) Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-25-2003 Appealed from: Copiah County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: DISMISSED District Attorney: Alexander C. Martin Case Number: 2003-0093 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Adrian Smith |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Post-conviction relief - Sentence for escape - Section 97-9-49 (1) - Section 97-9-49 (2) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Adrian Smith entered pleas of guilty to armed robbery and escape. He filed a motion for post-conviction collateral relief which the court dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Smith argues that the two year sentence for escape under section 97-9-49 (1) was erroneous because his escape was not the result of force or violence and so he should have been sentenced pursuant to section 97-9-49 (2) which carries a maximum punishment of six months' imprisonment. The force or violence wording in the statute refers only to attempted escape and not to the separate and distinct offense of escape. Smith admits that while incarcerated on a pending felony charge of armed robbery, he walked away from his work detail in order to escape from jail. These facts establish that Smith was guilty of escape under section 97-9-49 (1). Smith also argues that the armed robbery and escape sentences imposed upon him should have run concurrently because he was a pre-trial detainee at the time of his escape. Whether a sentence is to be served concurrently or consecutively is clearly within the discretion of the trial judge section 99-19-21 (1). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
