Burns v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-01656-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-27-2006 Opinion Author: Southwick, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Clarification of sentences Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: PCR; Dismissal Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-11-2005 Appealed from: Pearl River County Circuit Court Judge: Michael R. Eubanks Disposition: DISMISSED PETITION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF Case Number: 2005-0328E PC |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | David W. Burns a/k/a David Wendell Burns |
DAVID W. BURNS (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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 - Clarification of sentences |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Burns sought to have clarification of two sentences that he had received, one when his post-release supervision for a prior felony offense was revoked and the other when he pled guilty to a new felony. The trial court treated his motion as a petition for post-conviction relief and dismissed it without a hearing. Burns appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Errors and related problems regarding sentences are proper for post-conviction relief motions. For questions regarding confusion about the operation of the state’s system of incarceration, the proper procedure is for a prisoner to seek relief through the administrative processes of the Department of Corrections. In ruling on Burns’ motion for clarification in 2005, the sentencing judge stated that the sentence given Burns on the fourth DUI “does not require the Petitioner to complete the intensive supervision house arrest program as a condition of probation or post-release supervision.” Thus, whatever the sentencing language most reasonably could be seen as meaning, the sentencing judge disclaimed that it was a condition. Since the trial judge now says on post-conviction relief that there was no such condition, there is also no continuing issue. When Burns seeks clarification of the operation of the two consecutive sentences, he has moved beyond challenging a possibly erroneous sentence and has raised a matter of ambiguity that is for the Department’s administrative remedy program to answer. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
