Johnson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-CP-00230-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-07-2012 Opinion Author: Russell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Resentencing - Habitual offender status - Section 99-19-81 Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Fair, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes and Roberts, JJ., concur in part and in the result without separate written opinion Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-21-2011 Appealed from: Clay County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: 2010-0321K |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Marietta Johnson |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY JR. |
|
|
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 - Resentencing - Habitual offender status - Section 99-19-81 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Marietta Johnson had two prior convictions for credit-card fraud and was sentenced to two years for each conviction, totaling four years. Subsequently, Johnson was convicted as an accessory after-the-fact for grand larceny and sentenced as a habitual offender. She received a sentence of five years. Johnson filed a handwritten motion in the circuit court, which the court treated as a motion for post-conviction relief and dismissed it. Subsequently, the circuit court entered an order granting Johnson’s request to appeal in forma pauperis. Johnson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Johnson argues the circuit court erred in failing to resentence her as a non-habitual offender because she is experiencing health problems. Johnson failed to cite any authority within her appellant brief or her reply brief. But a plain reading of section 99-19-81 states that a sentence imposed under this statute “shall not be reduced.” Johnson also argues that the circuit court’s failure to resentence her as a non-habitual offender constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. A sentence that does not exceed the maximum period allowed by statute will not be disturbed on appeal. Johnson received a five-year sentence, which clearly falls within the statutory limits. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
