Williams v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-KP-00227-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-15-2009
Opinion Author: Barnes, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Felony shoplifting - Jurisdiction - M.R.A.P. 4(a) - M.R.A.P. 2(c) - Habitual offender status - Section 99-19-81 - Cruel and unusual punishment
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ.
Dissenting Author : ROBERTS, J., with separate written opinion.
Dissent Joined By : MYERS, P.J., GRIFFIS AND MAXWELL, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-03-2005
Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Samac Richardson
Disposition: CONVICTED OF FELONY SHOPLIFTING AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION AND TO PAY A FINE OF $10,000 AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION AND TO PAY A FINE OF $10,000
District Attorney: David Byrd Clark
Case Number: 2004-0413

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: BRIDGIT WILLIAMS




BRIDGIT WILLIAMS (PRO SE)



 

Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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: Felony shoplifting - Jurisdiction - M.R.A.P. 4(a) - M.R.A.P. 2(c) - Habitual offender status - Section 99-19-81 - Cruel and unusual punishment

Summary of the Facts: Bridgit Williams was convicted of felony shoplifting and sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years. She appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction Williams’s notice of appeal was filed three years after the entry of the court’s order. The Mississippi Supreme Court issued a “Show Cause Notice” requesting that Williams show cause why her untimely appeal should not be dismissed under M.R.A.P. 4(a). After Williams filed her show cause notice, the Court of Appeals found that it was uncertain, based on the limited record, whether Williams’s appeal warranted suspension of the rules under M.R.A.P. 2(c). Therefore, the appeal was allowed to proceed on its merits. The State later filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The circuit court’s denial of Williams’s amended motion for a new trial on August 2, 2007, determines the starting date for the purposes of determining whether the appeal was untimely filed. As Williams filed her notice of appeal approximately six months after the circuit court denied her amended motion for a new trial under M.R.A.P. 4(a), the notice of appeal was untimely. However, the Court may allow an out-of-time appeal under M.R.A.P. 2(c) in a criminal case for good cause shown and in the interest of expediting decision. Williams, in her show cause notice, claimed that she was financially unable to retain counsel and was not aware of the appellate rules. This does not constitute good cause. Moreover, Williams is also procedurally barred from raising her claim that her sentence was illegal as she failed to object to her sentence at trial. However, dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction would most likely result in a motion for post-conviction relief citing not only that her sentence was unconstitutional and illegal but also ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to her sentence. Therefore, the merits of her appeal will be considered. Issue 2: Habitual offender status Williams argues that she should not have been charged as a habitual offender as the sentences for her two previous convictions were served concurrently. Section 99-19-81 merely requires that the defendant be sentenced to one year or more for each crime. It does not require that the individual be incarcerated under his imposed sentences to obtain habitual offender status. Williams was convicted and sentenced for two separate crimes. Thus, the felonies were separate incidents which occurred at different times, as required by the statute. Issue 3: Cruel and unusual punishment Williams argues that her sentence was unconstitutional as it exceeded the maximum sentence allowed by law. A sentence that does not exceed the maximum period usually will not be disturbed on appeal. It is clear from the evidence that the merchandise was valued at more than $500. Therefore, as Williams was a habitual offender, the circuit court was required under section 99-19-81 to impose the maximum sentence for grand larceny, which is ten years and a fine of $10,000. This is exactly the sentence that Williams received.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court