Lambert v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CP-02386-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-26-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Due process - Double jeopardy Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-08-2003 Appealed from: Lincoln Circuit Court Judge: Keith Starrett Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED District Attorney: J. Daniel Smith Case Number: 03-389-A |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Robert Lambert |
PRO SE |
||
| 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: | Post-conviction relief - Due process - Double jeopardy |
| Summary of the Facts: | Robert Lambert was convicted of burglary and sexual battery. On the burglary charge, Lambert was sentenced to eight years, with five years suspended. On the sexual battery charge, Lambert was sentenced to eight years, with six years suspended. After Lambert admitted to being under the influence of alcohol and admitted to domestic violence, the court found that Lambert had violated the terms and conditions of his post-release supervision and ordered that three years of his suspended sentence be revoked. Lambert filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Due process After the original revocation hearing, the court allowed Lambert’s case to be reopened after finding that Lambert’s girlfriend was intimidated by the number of people in the courtroom. Lambert argues that his due process rights were violated and that the court relied on false evidence. However, there is no indication from the record that any evidence presented was false. Not only did Lambert have a hearing, an opportunity for cross examination, and an opportunity to testify, but he did not object to the reopening of the case or to the truthfulness of the testimony. Therefore, Lambert's due process rights were not violated. Lambert also argues that the court enhanced his sentence. By revoking three years of Lambert's suspension, the court simply reinstated a portion of his original sentence. As a result, Lambert did not receive an enhanced sentence. Issue 2: Double jeopardy Lambert argues that he was sentenced twice for the same offense and was therefore subject to double jeopardy. The record does not show that Lambert was given two sentences for committing one offense. Rather, the result of the first hearing was the supplementation of the terms of post-release supervision. Therefore, the initial modification of Lambert's post-release supervision did not constitute a separate sentence for purposes of double jeopardy. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
