Ducote v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00693-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-11-2007 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: The judgment of the Circuit Court of Oktibbeha County of dismissing Cucote's motion to reconsider his sentence and motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Motion to reconsider sentence - URCCC 10.05 - Section 47-7-47(2)(a) - Section 11-1-16 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: PCR; Dismissal Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY; CIVIL - POSTCONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-17-2006 Appealed from: OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr. Disposition: DISMISSED MOTION TO RECONSIDER SENTENCE; DISMISSED MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF. Case Number: 2006-0057-CV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | PATRICK JOSEPH DUCOTE |
GEORGE S. SHADDOCK,
CALVIN D. TAYLOR |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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 - Motion to reconsider sentence - URCCC 10.05 - Section 47-7-47(2)(a) - Section 11-1-16 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Patrick Ducote pled guilty to the sale of ecstasy. The judge ordered Ducote to serve eight years, with five years of post release supervision and a fine of $5,000. Ducote signed a motion to reconsider his sentence. The court dismissed the motion and found it did not retain jurisdiction. Ducote appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Ducote argues that the court erred in considering this action a petition for post-conviction relief and in refusing to consider Ducote’s motion to reconsider his sentence for lack of jurisdiction. Once a case has been terminated and the term of court ends, a circuit court is powerless to alter or vacate its judgment, in the absence of a statute authorizing modification of a sentence. However, this holding does not impact the ability of a circuit court to rule on motions which are pending at the end of the term of court. Nor does this holding apply to URCCC 10.05, which states a motion for a new trial should be filed within ten days of the entry of judgment, regardless of when the term of court ends. Additionally, section 47-7-47(2)(a) is one way a trial judge can statutorily revisit sentencing upon its own motion, after thirty days but before one year after the defendant has been delivered into the custody of the Department of Corrections. There was no error in the trial court’s dismissal of the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The Oktibbeha County Circuit Court’s 2006 term began the fourth Monday in January for twelve days. Consequently, the twelfth day of the term was in fact February 3, 2006 – the date Ducote apparently executed his motion. While Ducote stated his motion was “filed” on February 3, 2006, the circuit court clerk stamped the motion “filed” on February 7, 2006. There was no error in the trial court’s reliance on the clerk’s documentation as to when the document was truly filed. A judge may not alter or vacate a sentence once the term of court the defendant was sentenced in has ended, thus Ducote was four days late, for jurisdictional purposes, in filing his motion. Further, this motion could not be considered “pending” under section 11-1-16, because the motion was not filed before the term of court ended. The relief Ducote requests in the motion is undeniably post-conviction material, regardless of his intentions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
