Smith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-01700-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CP-01700-COA ; 2005-CT-01700-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-06-2007 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Time bar Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CARLTON, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-01-2005 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Betty W. Sanders Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED. Case Number: 2004-0227-M |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | EARNEST SMITH |
EARNEST 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 - Time bar |
| Summary of the Facts: | Earnest Smith entered guilty pleas to several different drug and weapon charges, including possession of cocaine with intent to sell or distribute, possession of marijuana with intent to sell or distribute, and three counts of possession of firearms by a convicted felon. Smith was sentenced on these counts as a habitual offender to concurrent, respective terms of thirty years, twelve years, three years, three years and three years. More than nine years later, Smith filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Smith argues that the habitual offender statute under which he was sentenced is unconstitutional because it does not require a jury trial to determine whether an offender meets the eligibility requirements for enhanced punishment. The United States Supreme Court and the Mississippi Supreme Court have made clear that an offender has no entitlement to a jury trial on the issue of whether he qualifies for enhanced punishment under the habitual offender statute. Thus, Smith failed to prove that an intervening decision of the United States Supreme Court or the Mississippi Supreme Court excepts the procedural time bar of his claim pursuant to section 99-39-5(2). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
