Boutwell v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-CP-00998-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-03-2003 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ambiguity in sentence Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-24-2001 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Bailey Disposition: DENIAL OF POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITH REGARD TO REVOCATION OF PROBATION District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 01-CV-056(b) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Leonard Lee Boutwell |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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 - Ambiguity in sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Leonard Boutwell pled guilty to felony driving under the influence in 1995 and was sentenced to five years. He was placed on supervised probation for five years after his release from his initial incarceration period of six months. Sometime after his release from initial confinement, his probation was revoked for violating the terms of his probationary release. Boutwell filed a motion for post-conviction relief seeking to have the oral pronouncement by the court of a two and one-half year sentence enforced as the lawful sentence of the court, rather than the four and one-half year sentence recited in the court’s written order. The court denied the motion, and Boutwell appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | When there is a direct conflict between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the ensuing written judgment of sentence, the oral pronouncement of the sentencing court controls. Otherwise, a defendant would be sentenced in absentia. When there is some ambiguity in the sentence – rather than an irreconcilable conflict – there may be further inquiry that takes into account both the oral pronouncement and the written order in an effort to discern the court’s actual intent. In this case, there is a situation where a measure of ambiguity is present. Boutwell’s right to have that ambiguity resolved was satisfied when the court, in considering his post-conviction relief motion, reviewed the matter and affirmatively determined that it was the court’s intention from the beginning to sentence Boutwell to the entire remaining term of four and one-half years and that the contrary statement in open court was, in fact, a simple misstatement. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
