Waddell v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CP-00020-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CP-00020-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-05-2008 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Due process rights - Presentence report - Mitigating factors - Disproportionate sentence - Judge’s bias - Credit for time served - Section 99-19-23 - Forfeiture of accrued earned time - Section 47-5-138(3)(a) Judge(s) Concurring: MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): ROBERTS, J. Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-27-2006 Appealed from: WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 03-115K-4 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | SCOTT E. WADDELL A/K/A ANDREW SCOTT EUGENE WADDELL |
SCOTT E. WADDELL (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER |
|
|
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 - Due process rights - Presentence report - Mitigating factors - Disproportionate sentence - Judge’s bias - Credit for time served - Section 99-19-23 - Forfeiture of accrued earned time - Section 47-5-138(3)(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Scott Waddell pled guilty to armed robbery. The court sentenced him to fifteen years with no eligibility for parole. Waddell filed a motion to set aside his sentence for modification or reduction which the court denied. Waddell appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Due process rights Waddell argues that the court violated his due process rights by failing to accurately interpret and properly apply findings from the presentence investigation report. A defendant’s constitutional rights are not violated when the trial court considers the information contained in a presentence investigation report in determining what sentence to impose. Sentencing is within the discretion of the trial court and not subject to appellate review if it is within prescribed statutory limits. Waddell’s sentence of fifteen years was within the statutory guidelines. Issue 2: Mitigating factors Waddell argues that the court erred in failing to weigh the mitigating factors prior to sentencing. In its findings, the trial court set out numerous facts which it weighed in determining Waddell’s sentence, including the violent nature of the offense, Waddell’s level of participation in the offense, Waddell’s past offenses, Waddell’s history with substance abuse, and Waddell’s violation of his probation while in Tennessee. As the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits, there was no error by the trial court in imposing the sentence. Issue 3: Disproportionate sentence Waddell argues that because of his involvement in the crime and other mitigating factors, his sentence was disproportionate to those received by his co-defendants. In determining Waddell’s sentence, the trial court noted that Waddell admitted to committing the armed robbery, and Waddell admitted to shooting into the victim’s car. As the sentence was within the statutorily prescribed limits, there is no inference of gross disproportionality in Waddell’s sentence. Issue 4: Judge’s bias Waddell argues that the trial court was biased against him because he lived in Tennessee, and he should have been awarded post-release supervision similar to two of his co-defendants. As the sentence imposed was proper, there was no error by the trial court in failing to impose post-release supervision. Issue 5: Credit for time served Waddell argues that the trial court erred in failing to award him credit for time served in jail in Tennessee, but his co-defendants were awarded credit. Section 99-19-23, which allows credit for time served in another jurisdiction, does not apply to time served in another state. The trial court did not award Waddell credit for time served in Tennessee because Waddell did not waive extradition and was not placed into Mississippi custody until September 26, 2002. Waddell had been in jail in Tennessee since the beginning of June 2002. Issue 6: Forfeiture of accrued earned time Waddell argues that the trial court erred in ordering the MDOC to forfeit sixty days of his accrued earned time. Pursuant to section 47-5-138(3)(a), an inmate can lose accrued earned time if he or she files a motion that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Waddell presented no argument which would enable him to prevail upon appeal. Based on this statutory provision, the trial court acted within appropriate boundaries when ordering the forfeiture. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
