Norwood v. State
| Docket Number: | 2000-KA-01027-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-27-2003 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Criminal: Kidnaping, Attempted forcible sexual intercourse, & Attempted rape - Post-conviction relief motion - Fundamental right - Court’s authority in sentencing - Section 47 7 3(1)(b) Judge(s) Concurring: King, P.J., Bridges, Lee, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Southwick, P.J. Votes: McMillin, C.J. Non Participating Judge(s): Thomas, J. Concurs in Result Only: Griffis, J. Procedural History: Guilty Plea Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-27-2000 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Robert H. Walker Disposition: DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED TO 10 YEARS IN CAUSE #B1-98-1012 TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY WITH 10 YEARS IN CAUSE #B1-99-295-COUNT III FOR A TOTAL OF 20 YEARS, THE FOREGOING SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH 22 YEARS IN CAUSE #B1-99-295-COUNT II FOR A TOTAL OF 22 YEARS TO SERVE District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: 98-01012 |
|
| Note: | Appellant's motion for rehearing is granted. Griffis, J., not participating. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Dexter Allen Norwood |
JIM DAVIS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS JR. |
|
|
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: | Criminal: Kidnaping, Attempted forcible sexual intercourse, & Attempted rape - Post-conviction relief motion - Fundamental right - Court’s authority in sentencing - Section 47 7 3(1)(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is granted, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Dexter Norwood pled guilty to kidnaping, attempted forcible sexual intercourse, and attempted rape. He was sentenced to twenty two years for the kidnaping and ten years each for the attempted rape and attempted forcible intercourse. Norwood filed several motions to correct sentencing. The third and final sentencing order by the court provided that the two ten year sentences for the sex crimes were to be served day for day without the benefit of parole or probation. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The State argues that this appeal should be dismissed as an attempt to appeal from a conviction on a plea of guilty. While the conviction itself cannot be appealed, an illegal sentence handed down pursuant to the plea is appealable. Norwood filed his notice of appeal within thirty days of the final corrected order, but more than thirty days after the initial order. Although he filed two post-trial motions, neither of them was sufficient to toll the time for taking an appeal. In addition, Norwood did not file a motion for extension of time to file an appeal. Therefore, when he filed his notice of appeal, the time to prosecute a direct appeal from the initial sentencing order had long since expired. Norwood argues that the court was without statutory jurisdiction to impose the "day for day without the benefit of parole or probation" provision. The Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act is the legal vehicle for judicial redress of claims by prisoners that the court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence. Norwood filed two motions. His second motion is barred as a successive motion under 99-39-23. The bar is waived, however, because the allegation that the court exceeded its authority in the sentencing process implicates a fundamental right, for such a sentence would in all likelihood be illegal. Since section 47-7-3(1)(g) prohibiting the grant of parole to persons convicted of a crime after June 30, 1995, is a mandate to the parole board and not to the courts, the court should not have included the restrictive language in the sentencing order. However, the inclusion of the restrictive language does not in fact impair the fundamental right to be free from an illegal sentence since Norwood's sentence is not illegal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
