YEATMAN v. STATE
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-00847-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CP-00847-COA ; 2010-CT-00847-SCT ; 2010-CT-00847-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-28-2012 Opinion Author: Justice King Holding: Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part; Circuit court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Amendment of indictment - Habitual offender status - Section 99-39-9(2) - Illegal sentence - Section 97-3-7(1) - Section 99-19-81 |
|
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 - Amendment of indictment - Habitual offender status - Section 99-39-9(2) - Illegal sentence - Section 97-3-7(1) - Section 99-19-81 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jeffrey Yeatman pled guilty to offenses charged in three cause numbers. The trial court imposed the following sentences: Cause number 2006-0161-CR, simple assault upon a law enforcement officer as a habitual offender, five years imprisonment and a fine of $5,000; cause number 2006-0327-CR, third offense DUI, five years imprisonment and a fine of $5,000 as a habitual offender; cause number 2006-0328-CR, third offense DUI as a habitual offender, one year imprisonment, four years of post-release supervision, and a fine of $100. Yeatman filed a motion for post-conviction relief, assigned cause number 2009–0476-CV, challenging the changes made to the indictment in cause number 2006-0161-CR, the charge of simple assault on a law enforcement officer. That same day, Yeatman filed a second motion for PCR, assigned cause number 2009-0477-CV, challenging his conviction as a habitual offender in cause number 2006-0327-CR (DUI third offense). The trial court entered an order denying Yeatman relief in cause number 2009-0476-CV. The trial court did not rule on Yeatman’s request for relief in cause number 2009-0477-CV but later entered an order, directing that the file in cause number 2009-0477 be merged with the file in cause number 2009-0476-CV. Yeatman appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Amendment of indictment In his motion for post-conviction relief in cause number 2009-0476-CV, Yeatman argued that his indictment was improperly amended by striking the term “deputy” and replacing it with the term “law enforcement officer,” and that an unlawful fine was imposed for the charge of simple assault on a law enforcement officer as a habitual offender. There is no indication of when, by whom, or by what authority the term “law enforcement officer” was substituted for the term “deputy.” The indictment is a solemn document and should not be altered without proper authority once it has been released by the grand jury. However, the error, if any, was harmless for two reasons. First, a deputy sheriff is by definition a law-enforcement officer. Second, Yeatman waived any non substantive defects in the indictment by entry of his guilty plea. Issue 2: Habitual offender status The trial court committed error when it declined to rule on Yeatman’s request for post-conviction relief in 2009-0477-CV and ordered that file to be merged with the file in 2009-0476-CV. The request for relief in 2009-0477-CV was based upon the conviction of DUI, third offense, as a habitual offender in cause number 2006-0327-CR, and challenged whether Yeatman had in fact been charged as a habitual offender in that cause. The request for relief in cause number 2009-0476-CV was based upon the conviction of simple assault upon a law-enforcement officer as a habitual offender in cause number 2006-0161-CR. Pursuant to section 99-39-9(2), each request for post-conviction relief must be limited to only one conviction. Yeatman’s motion for post-conviction relief in cause number 2009-0477-CV, on its face, appears to have merit. Thus, the case is remanded to the trial court to make a determination of whether Yeatman was charged as a habitual offender in 2006-0327-CR. Should the trial court find that Yeatman was not charged as a habitual offender in the criminal information in cause number 2006-0327-CR, it should vacate the habitual-offender portion of any sentence which it has imposed in that cause. Issue 3: Illegal sentence In his motion for post-conviction relief in cause number 2009-0476-CV, which was ruled upon by the trial court, Yeatman argued that an unlawful fine was imposed for the charge of simple assault on a law-enforcement officer as a habitual offender. The trial court ordered him to pay a $5,000 fine. Yeatman argues this fine is in violation of section 97-3-7(1). Section 97-3-7(1) provides for a maximum fine of $1000 on conviction of simple assault on a law-enforcement officer. The statute does not provide for enhancement of the fine due to habitual-offender status. Nor does section 99-19-81, the habitual-offender statute under which Yeatman was convicted, provide for the enhancement of any fines. The fine imposed in this case exceeded the allowable statutory range, and is thus an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the fine of $5,000 imposed in cause number 2006-0161-CR (simple assault on a law-enforcement officer) is vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court for entry of a proper sentence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
