Wall v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CP-02799-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-28-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Recommended sentence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Myers, Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-10-2003 Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED. District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 03-173-B |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Bobby Glenn Wall, Sr. |
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 - Recommended sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bobby Wall pled guilty to the charges of escape of a prisoner from jail and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. Wall was sentenced to three years for the crime of escape of a prisoner from jail and two years for unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, to run consecutively to each other and consecutively to his other sentence presently being served. Wall filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Wall did not receive the sentences recommended by the district attorney’s office, and Wall argues the court erred in sentencing him differently. The judge's decision to accept or reject a plea is within the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Wall’s sentence was not concurrent as was recommended; however, he was only sentenced to a total of five years when the recommendation was for fifteen. Because the sentence given to Wall was within the bounds set by the statute, it was not an abuse of discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
