Ross v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-01078-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CP-01078-COA ; 2010-CT-01078-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-18-2011 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Indictment - Section 47-7-3(1)(d)(ii) - Section 47-7-3(1)(d)(i) - Sentence of co-defendant Judge(s) Concurring: Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Daniel Zachary Ross |
PRO SE |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE B. WOOD | ||
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 - Indictment - Section 47-7-3(1)(d)(ii) - Section 47-7-3(1)(d)(i) - Sentence of co-defendant |
| Summary of the Facts: | Daniel Ross pled guilty to armed robbery. He was sentenced to thirty years, with eighteen years suspended and five years of post-release supervision. Ross filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Indictment Ross argues that the trial court erroneously sentenced him under section 47-7-3(1)(d)(ii), which denies eligibility for parole for armed robbery. He argues that he should have been sentenced under section 47-7-3(1)(d)(i), which allows for parole. He argues that section 47-7-3(1)(d)(ii) is for sentences involving carjackings. This argument is without merit since section 47-7-3(1)(d)(ii) applies to “robbery, attempted robbery, carjacking[,] or a drive-by shooting.” Issue 2: Sentence of co-defendant Ross argues that he was denied due process of law because one of his codefendants was allowed to enter a guilty plea to simple robbery and was given a lesser sentence than Ross. A sentence that does not exceed the maximum term allowed by statute cannot be disturbed on appeal. Ross’s sentence falls within the statutory guidelines. Further, there is no requirement that co-conspirators receive identical sentences. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
