Edmond v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CP-02511-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-14-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Sentence - Right to appeal - Evidentiary hearing Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-17-2003 Appealed from: Tate County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF TO VACATE AND RECONSIDER AND MODIFY SENTENCE - DISMISSED. District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: CV2003-0220-BT |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Myron Cornell Edmond a/k/a Myron Edmond |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
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 - Sentence - Right to appeal - Evidentiary hearing |
| Summary of the Facts: | Myron Edmond pled guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to fourteen years, with seven years suspended. Edmond filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sentence Edmond argues that the court was unfairly harsh in sentencing him and points to the sentence that the co-defendant received to demonstrate disparity in sentencing. Edmond pled guilty to armed robbery while the co-defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The disparity that exists between the sentences is a product of the disparity of the crimes to which they pled guilty. Edmond also argues that the court improperly used unrelated cases to sentence him. The court evaluated various considerations before Edmond received his sentence. One of those considerations was the need to sentence according to statutory guidelines as well as the need to sentence consistently with similar offenses imposed in the Tate County Circuit Court. A sentence will not be reversed if the sentence is within the statutory term. Here, the sentence was within statutory guidelines. Edmond also argues that the judge failed to fully advise him of his possible sentence because the judge did not inform him of the provision that carries a mandatory ten-year sentence for committing armed robbery. It seems counterintuitive for Edmond to benefit from the court’s lenience only to argue that such lenience is a violation of his fundamental rights. Issue 2: Right to appeal Edmond argues that the court misadvised him of his right to appeal. He argues that the judge told him he would have no right to appeal. Section 99-35-101 states that an appeal is not allowed if a defendant pleads guilty. It is clear that the court was simply advising Edmond of this provision, rather than attempting to convince Edmond that he could not appeal in any fashion. Issue 3: Evidentiary hearing Edmond argues that the court erred when it dismissed his motion for post-conviction relief without granting an evidentiary hearing. If it appears from the face of a motion for post-conviction relief, that the movant is not entitled to relief, the court can dismiss that motion. Here, the court properly determined that an evidentiary hearing was unwarranted. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
