Lyons v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CP-01780-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-31-2004 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Bifurcated hearing - UCCCR 11.03 - Evidentiary hearing Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges, P.J., Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-31-2003 Appealed from: Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge: Keith Starrett Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 2003-162-A |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Paul Lyons |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
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 - Bifurcated hearing - UCCCR 11.03 - Evidentiary hearing |
| Summary of the Facts: | Paul Lyons was convicted of felony possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute. He was sentenced to fifteen years. Lyons filed a notice of appeal but withdrew it after he reached an agreement with the State to dismiss two counts of sale of a controlled substance. The supreme court issued a mandate dismissing his appeal. Lyons later filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the court dismissed. Lyons appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Bifurcated hearing Lyons argues that the court erred in failing to hold a bifurcated hearing prior to sentencing him as an habitual offender. UCCCR 11.03 mandates a separate hearing before a defendant can be adjudged an habitual offender and subjected to enhanced punishment. Here, the judge’s order of dismissal noted that Lyons was in fact given a bifurcated hearing. In the absence of a contrary indication, that order must be accepted as true. In addition, his motion for post-conviction relief is procedurally barred. The dismissal of his direct appeal from the supreme court was a final judgment. He failed to follow section 99-39-7 which required that he file his motion for post conviction relief in the supreme court, seeking permission to file in the trial court. Issue 2: Evidentiary hearing Lyons argues that his motion for post-conviction relief was improperly dismissed as the judge did not conduct an evidentiary hearing. Where the trial court was not the court of proper jurisdiction an evidentiary hearing was not necessary, and Lyons’s claim was properly dismissed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
