Miller v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-CT-01223-SCT Linked Case(s): 2001-KA-01223-COA ; 2001-CT-01223-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-17-2004 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: The Judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part; the Judgment of the DeSoto County Circuit Court is Reinstated and Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Arson - Weight of evidence - Post-release supervision - Section 47-7-33 - Section 47-7-34 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Graves and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Waller, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Cobb, P.J., and Dickinson, J. Concurs in Result Only: Easley, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-27-2001 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: George B. Ready Disposition: ARSON IN THE 1ST DEGREE: SENTENCED TO A TERM OF ONE YEAR IN THE MDOC FOLLOWED BY SUPERVISED PROBATION UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE MDOC FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. District Attorney: Ann H. Lamar Case Number: CR2001-29 RD |
|
| Note: | The supreme court found that the trial court was authorized by the applicable statutes to sentence Miller to one year in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections followed by ten years of supervised probation limited by the clear language of the sentencing order to the maximum five-year period for MDOC supervision and therefore reinstated the sentence of the trial court. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Donald Wade Miller |
JAMES W. AMOS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: 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: | Arson - Weight of evidence - Post-release supervision - Section 47-7-33 - Section 47-7-34 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Donald Miller was accused of intentionally setting fire to his trailer and was convicted of arson. He was sentenced to one year followed by ten years of supervised probation. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded for the limited purpose of correcting that portion of the sentence which requires post-release supervision for a period of excess of five years. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Court of Appeals found the following evidence to be consistent with the guilty verdict of arson: Miller was the sole occupant of the trailer; a telephone call was made from the trailer approximately ten minutes before the fire was reported; Miller was the last person known to be at the trailer; a car was seen leaving the vicinity of Miller's trailer shortly before the fire; the fire was started deliberately; Miller was at home between 2:38 p.m. and 2:40 p.m.; the fire was reported at approximately 2:49 p.m.; and a call was made from Miller's trailer at approximately 2:38 p.m. There were conflicts in the evidence which unquestionably had to be resolved by the jury. Therefore, the Court of Appeals was correct in determining that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Regarding the sentence imposed by the trial court, the Court of Appeals has mistakenly used the terms “supervised probation” and “post-release supervision” interchangeably. Section 47-7-33 provides for supervised probation, while section 47-7-34 provides for post-release supervision. At least two major differences in these two statutes are supervised probation may not be imposed on a convicted felon while post-release supervision may be imposed on a convicted felon, and supervised probation is limited to five years while post-release supervision is not. Here, the trial judge was placing Miller on probation, but only five years of which would be served under the supervision of the MDOC with the remaining five years being in essence “unsupervised probation.” While Miller could not be required to serve more than five years by way of reporting to a MDOC probation officer (supervised probation), he could serve the remainder of his sentence by way of unsupervised probation. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the sentence imposed by the trial court. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
