Shavers v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-CP-00876-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-31-2012 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Multi-count indictment - Double jeopardy - Excessive sentence Judge(s) Concurring: Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-03-2011 Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: DISMISSED MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF Case Number: 2011-108-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kirby Shavers |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY JR. |
|
|
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 - Multi-count indictment - Double jeopardy - Excessive sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kirby Shavers pled guilty to rape, kidnapping, burglary of a dwelling, grand larceny, and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced Shavers as follows: seventeen years for rape, fifteen years for kidnapping, twenty-five years for burglary of a dwelling, five years for grand larceny, and twenty years for aggravated assault. Shavers filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Shavers raises questions concerning double jeopardy, the legality of his sentence, and the permissibility of his multi-count indictment. In regard to any argument concerning a multi-count indictment, this issue was waived as a result of Shavers’s guilty plea. In regard to the double-jeopardy claim, Shavers appears to argue he was punished multiple times for the same offense – the burglary charge. However, separate offenses, though committed under a common nucleus of operative fact, do not present a legal impediment to multiple prosecutions under the double jeopardy clause of both the federal and the state constitutions. In regard to whether Shavers’s sentence was excessive, it is clear from the plea colloquy Shavers was aware of the maximum and minimum sentences for each crime. Each sentence Shavers received was within the statutory limits. Shavers also argues he was entitled to a sentence reduction on account of his deteriorating physical health and because he was drunk and/or on drugs at the time he committed the crimes charged. Shavers failed to present such evidence during his guilty plea or during his sentencing hearing; thus, his arguments are waived. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
