Weaver v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-00725-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-CA-00725-COA ; 2001-CT-00725-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-25-2003 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Double jeopardy - Post-sentence changes Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-12-2001 Appealed from: Chickasaw County Circuit Court Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE SENTENCE DENIED District Attorney: James M. Hood, III Case Number: H-99-073 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Michael Weaver a/k/a Michael Herbert Weaver |
JOHN P. FOX |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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 - Double jeopardy - Post-sentence changes |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael Weaver pled guilty to one count of burglary of a dwelling and was sentenced to twenty years with five years to serve and the final fifteen suspended upon good behavior. He was also to be banished from a 100 mile radius of Houston, Mississippi for the period of his suspended sentence. In an appeal dealing with the banishment provision, the Court of Appeals remanded for on-the-record findings as to the relevant considerations and for the court to clarify its sentencing order as to the length of the banishment period. On remand, the court entered an “Order of the Court Clarifying Sentencing Order” amending the original judgment to remove the provision for banishment and place Weaver on supervised probation for a period of five years upon his release from custody. Weaver appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Weaver argues that the added requirement of supervised probation is a new and additional element of punishment, more onerous than his original sentence, resulting in his being punished twice for the same crime in violation of the Double Jeopardy provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Any attempt to alter the terms of punishment in order to increase the severity of the punishment, once the sentence originally announced becomes final, is not permitted under the Double Jeopardy Clause. There is no blanket prohibition against any form of post-sentence changes under the constitutional provisions asserted by Weaver. A change in the conditions of probation is not necessarily an increase in sentence. The requirement imposed by the court in this case of periodically reporting in some appropriate manner to a probation officer who then has the opportunity to monitor Weaver’s post-release activities and, through appropriate supervisory techniques, assist Weaver in avoiding the pitfalls that led to his previous legal problems is not so punitive or onerous as to amount to an unlawful increase of the terms of his punishment. Such a requirement is rehabilitative rather than punitive and was within the court’s authority. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
