Foster v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01938-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-01938-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-31-2007 Opinion Author: WALLER, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Capital murder - Sentence - Section 97-3-21 - Section 99-19-107 - M.R.A.P. 27 - M.R.A.P. 40 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-02-2005 Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: The circuit court denied Foster’s motion for a new sentencing hearing, finding that it had no discretion to consider the propriety of Foster’s claim. District Attorney: Forrest Allgood Case Number: 11,229 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | RONALD CHRIS FOSTER |
MICHAEL R. FARROW
STEVE WALLACE |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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: | Capital murder - Sentence - Section 97-3-21 - Section 99-19-107 - M.R.A.P. 27 - M.R.A.P. 40 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Supreme Court vacated the death sentence of Ronald Foster and directed the circuit court to resentence Foster to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The circuit court complied with that directive. Foster appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Foster argues that the court erred in not resentencing him under the 1991 version of Mississippi’s capital murder statute, which would require a sentence of life with the possibility of parole. He argue that his sentence constitutes an impermissible ex post facto punishment since the only sentencing options available under section 97-3-21 at the time of sentencing were death or life with the possibility of parole. Foster’s claim should have been raised in a response to the State’s motion under M.R.A.P. 27(a), or, in the alternative, in a motion for reconsideration of a motion under M.R.A.P. 27(h), or in a motion for rehearing under M.R.A.P. 40, after the Court granted the State’s motion. His failure to do so bars his claim. At the time he committed the crime, Foster was equally subject to section 99-19-107 which states that in the event the death penalty is held to be unconstitutional by the Mississippi Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, the court having jurisdiction over a person previously sentenced to death shall cause such person to be brought before the court and the court shall sentence such person to imprisonment for life, and such person shall not be eligible for parole. The language of the statute is clear; it intends to provide for an alternative sentence for a person whose death sentence has been deemed unconstitutional. To the extent that Abram v. State, 606 So. 2d 1015 (Miss. 1992) is inconsistent with the plain meaning of section 99-19-107, it is overruled. Because Foster’s death penalty was found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court’s ruling, the application of section 99-19-107 is appropriate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
