Sweat v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CT-00909-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00909-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-06-2005 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE ITAWAMBA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Prior convicted felon - Post-release supervision - Section 47-7-33 - Section 47-7-34 - Remanding for resentencing Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF Writ of Certiorari: Yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-14-2003 Appealed from: Itawamba County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED District Attorney: JOHN R. YOUNG Case Number: CV03-005(F)I |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Court of Appeals. See the original COA opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO22814.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Joe Earl Sweat |
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 - Prior convicted felon - Post-release supervision - Section 47-7-33 - Section 47-7-34 - Remanding for resentencing |
| Summary of the Facts: | Joe Sweat, a prior-convicted felon, pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. His plea was accepted, and he was sentenced to twenty years, with twelve years suspended and five years of post-release supervision. Sweat later filed a motion seeking post-conviction relief which the court dismissed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in part but held that the trial court erred when it suspended a portion of Sweat’s twenty year sentence. It further held that only the trial court has authority to modify the sentence, because sentencing is the exclusive prerogative of the trial courts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Court of Appeals read sections 47-7-33 and -34 to conclude that the circuit court did not have the authority to suspend the imposition of Sweat’s sentence, because he had been previously convicted of a felony. Thus, the Court of Appeals remanded so that his sentence could be modified. This reading is not in line with recent decisions by this Court. The two statutes serve completely different purposes. Section 47-7-33 allows for supervised probation, while section 47-7-34 allows for post release supervision. Between these statutes there are two major differences: a convicted felon may not be given supervised probation but may be given post-release supervision; and, there is no time limit for post-release supervision while there is a five-year limit for supervised probation. At the time of sentencing, Sweat was a prior convicted felon. Therefore, section 47-7-33 is inapplicable, and section 47-7-34 must apply. Here, it is clear that the trial court sentenced Sweat under section 47-7-34. Therefore, the trial court’s sentence is modified so that following his eight years of incarceration, Sweat will be released to twelve years of post release supervision but that he is required to report to MDOC officials for only five years and the remaining seven years will be “unsupervised” post-release supervision. The Court of Appeals held that any error, even one such as the present one, must be remanded to the trial court for resentencing. The Court now holds that it does not, and that the appellate court may resentence a convicted defendant without remanding to the trial court in cases where the error is caused by a misapplication of a sentencing statute. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
