Curry v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CP-00892-COA
Linked Case(s): 2002-CP-00892-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-24-2003
Opinion Author: Lee, J.
Holding: DISMISSAL OF POST-CONVICTION RELIEF AFFIRMED BUT REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SENTENCING

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Revocation of probation - Reconsideration of sentence - Medical condition
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: PCR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-08-2002
Appealed from: Panola County Circuit Court
Judge: Andrew C. Baker
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED.
District Attorney: John W. Champion
Case Number: CV2002-90BP2

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Michael Curry




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 - Revocation of probation - Reconsideration of sentence - Medical condition

Summary of the Facts: Michael Curry was convicted on two counts of fondling and was sentenced to serve ten years for each count. The court suspended the sentences, placing him on probation for five years. Curry violated the conditions of his probation and, at his request, was ordered to participate in the Regimented Inmate Discipline (RID) Program. Through a routine blood screening for new prisoners, Curry learned he had HIV. Rather than going to the RID program, he was placed in the unit at Parchman designated for HIV-infected prisoners. Curry filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the court dismissed. Curry appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Curry argues that the diagnosis of his HIV status constitutes newly discovered evidence as would justify a reconsideration of his sentence. Even if this information had been available to the judge, it would not have changed the fact that Curry violated the terms of his probation. Although the dismissal of Curry’s motion for post-conviction relief insofar as he sought to set aside the determination that a violation of probation had occurred is affirmed, further consideration is warranted in the matter of the court’s resulting sentence of Curry that permitted him to participate in the RID Program in hopes of obtaining an early release from confinement. Had Curry been removed from the RID Program because of misconduct, it would be entirely appropriate for him to be summarily returned to the general prison population to serve out the remainder of his sentence. However, when his inability to participate in the program arose from a circumstance unknown to the sentencing court and one not traceable to any behavioral failing on Curry’s part, to require Curry to serve the entire balance of his sentence in the general prison population does not necessarily reflect the evident intention of the court to devise an alternate sentence that was less severe than this available option. Therefore, the case is remanded so the court can reconsider Curry’s sentence if it determines that Curry’s medical condition is a “material fact” in the matter of determining an appropriate sentence.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court