Holloway v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-01069-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-30-2010 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Validity of enhancement provision - Ex post facto law Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-10-2009 Appealed from: Copiah County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2009-0222 |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Charles Frank Holloway, Jr. |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS | ||
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 - Validity of enhancement provision - Ex post facto law |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charles Holloway pled guilty to the sale of crack cocaine. He filed a petition seeking habeas corpus relief, which the circuit court treated as a PCR motion and denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Validity of enhancement provision Holloway argues that there was no factual basis for an enhancement provision in the indictment against him. At no time during the hearing was any enhancement provision ever mentioned; the only statements made were that Holloway was pleading guilty to the sale of crack cocaine. Furthermore, his eight-year sentence is well within the unenhanced thirty-year maximum punishment for the sale of cocaine. Although the circuit court referenced an alleged enhancement provision in its order denying Holloway’s PCR motion, there is no indication in the record that there was any such provision applied to Holloway’s conviction. Thus, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Ex post facto law Holloway argues that he was illegally subjected to a 2008 law that requires certain prisoners to serve only 25% of a sentence before being considered for release on parole. There is no merit to Holloway’s contention. The senate bill in question had no retroactive effect, as it only applied to future sentences and computations of time. Furthermore, even if the bill were applied retroactively, its application could only benefit Holloway, rendering any complaint on his part moot. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
