Caston v. State

Citation346 So.3d 935
Decision Date06 September 2022
Docket Number2021-CA-00397-COA
Parties John CASTON, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee
CourtCourt of Appeals of Mississippi

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: SANFORD E. KNOTT, Jackson

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: ALEXANDRA LEBRON

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., McCARTY AND SMITH, JJ.

SMITH, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. John Caston pled guilty in the Hinds County Circuit Court to ten counts of armed robbery with a firearm enhancement and was sentenced according to his plea agreement with the State. Nine years later, Caston filed a motion for post-conviction collateral relief (PCR) requesting an evidentiary hearing and attacking the proportionality of his sentence under the Eighth Amendment. The trial court denied Caston's request for an evidentiary hearing and dismissed his PCR motion, and Caston appeals. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court's denial of an evidentiary hearing and dismissal of Caston's PCR motion.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. In July 2010, John Caston admitted to participating in ten armed robberies committed in Hinds County over the course of two days. Caston's confession also identified four other people involved in the armed robberies (Caston's "co-defendants"). Caston was indicted on October 27, 2010, for ten counts of armed robbery in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-79 (Rev. 2006) with a firearm enhancement under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-37-37 (Rev. 2006). Each of his four co-defendants was also indicted on October 27, 2010, for the same ten counts of armed robbery with a firearm enhancement.

¶3. On April 11, 2011, Caston entered a guilty plea to all ten counts of armed robbery with a firearm, which the Hinds County Circuit Court accepted. The trial court sentenced Caston to a term of thirty years on each count to be served concurrently in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC).1

¶4. Caston subsequently filed his PCR motion on August 10, 2020. He requested that the trial court grant him an evidentiary hearing on the ground that Caston's sentence was disproportionate to the sentences his co-defendants received in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and to re-examine his sentence as a youth offender. Caston argued his PCR motion was not procedurally barred because he could not have raised his claim at trial, as he was sentenced before his co-defendants, or on direct appeal, as he had waived that right by pleading guilty, and because his claim involved a fundamental-rights exception. The trial court denied him an evidentiary hearing and dismissed Caston's PCR motion upon finding that his co-defendants were convicted of lesser charges; he agreed to his thirty-year sentence at the sentencing hearing without objection; and his youth was not a determinative factor. Aggrieved, Caston appeals from the trial court's order denying his request for an evidentiary hearing and dismissing his PCR motion.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶5. "We review the dismissal or denial of a PCR motion for abuse of discretion." Bevalaque v. State , 337 So. 3d 691, 694 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting Wheeler v. State , 306 So. 3d 751, 757 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) ). We only reverse "the trial court's factual findings [if they] are clearly erroneous." Id. Questions of law, however, are reviewed de novo. Id. Additionally, "[o]n appeal, this Court will affirm the summary dismissal of a PCR petition if the petitioner has failed to demonstrate ‘a claim procedurally alive substantially showing the denial of a state or federal right.’ " Young v. State , 245 So. 3d 510, 512 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Flowers v. State , 978 So. 2d 1281, 1283 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) ).

DISCUSSION

¶6. Caston claims that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because it is grossly disproportionate to the sentences imposed on his co-defendants. He specifically takes issue with the trial court's application of the disproportionality factors. Caston contends that the trial court erred in basing its ruling on the fact that the co-defendants pled guilty to lesser offenses. He alleges the trial court failed to acknowledge that Caston's cooperation led to his co-defendants’ convictions or that the State did not provide an explanation for the disparate treatment of him and his co-defendants. He argues that his significantly greater sentence is unconstitutional considering his indictment was identical to his co-defendants’ indictments, and his cooperation with the State led to the identification and conviction of his co-defendants.

¶7. "A trial court possesses the authority to summarily dismiss a PCR motion without an evidentiary hearing ‘if it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief.’ " Carter v. State , 313 So. 3d 495, 499 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Kennedy v. State , 181 So. 3d 299, 301 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) ); accord Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Rev. 2015) ("If it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief, the judge may make an order for its dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified."). The trial court was not in error and did not abuse its discretion by denying Caston an evidentiary hearing because it plainly appeared from the face of his PCR motion that Caston was not entitled to relief. We find that Caston waived his right to challenge his sentence when he entered his guilty plea and that his claim of an unconstitutionally disproportionate sentence lacks merit.

I. Waiver of the Right to Challenge the Sentence

¶8. After a review of the record, "it is apparent that [Caston] has waived any right to challenge the sentence he received[,]" considering Caston "voluntarily agreed to his [thirty-year concurrent] sentence as part of his plea bargain." Young , 245 So. 3d at 512 (¶6).

¶9. In Ross v. State , 87 So. 3d 484, 485 (¶2) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011), the defendant pled guilty to armed robbery in return for the State dismissing a charge for conspiracy, and the defendant received a sentence of thirty years. The defendant filed a PCR motion claiming he received a disproportionate sentence because "one of his co-defendants was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser crime than armed robbery and received a lesser sentence." Id . at (¶3). "[T]he trial court noted that ‘the sentences imposed in this matter were all the results of plea negotiations and recommendations by the State of Mississippi.’ " Id . at 487 (¶12). As a result, the argument of a disproportionate sentence was without merit. Id . at (¶13).

¶10. After the defendant in Bester v. State , 188 So. 3d 576, 576 (¶1) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014), pled guilty and received a life sentence, he filed a PCR motion arguing the sentence was illegal. We noted that "Bester's guilty plea was ‘entered freely, voluntarily, and intelligently’ and that the circuit court was ‘further advised by Bester, defense counsel, and the State's attorneys that plea negotiations have been conducted and that the recommendation of the State is mutually acceptable to all parties.’ " Id . at 578 (¶9). This Court concluded, "[I]t [wa]s clear in Bester's case that he waived a jury and requested the circuit court to honor his plea agreement." Id . at 579 (¶10).

¶11. Then in Young , the defendant pled guilty to armed robbery in exchange for the State dropping other charges and recommending a life sentence. Young , 245 So. 3d at 512 (¶1). The trial court followed the recommendation from the plea agreement and imposed a life sentence. Id . The defendant later filed a PCR motion alleging that he received an illegal sentence. Id . at 512 (¶2). We noted "that Young waived his right to challenge his sentence by joining the State's recommendation." Id . This Court found, "The record [wa]s clear that Young voluntarily agreed to a life sentence in order to avoid the risk of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. By doing so, he waived any right to jury sentencing or to claim that his sentence is ‘illegal.’ " Id . at 513 (¶8).

¶12. Here, the transcripts from Caston's guilty plea and sentencing hearing show the trial court stated it "accept[ed Caston's] guilty plea and [found] that it [was] voluntarily, knowingly, and willingly made," and the judge then asked the district attorney if there was a sentencing recommendation. The district attorney responded:

Yes, Your Honor. In exchange for this defendant's testimony against his co-defendants, the State would offer on Cause Number 10-1-276 this defendant be sentenced to 30 years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections on each count in the ten count indictment, all of those counts to be run concurrent to each other.

The trial court accepted the recommendation of the State and sentenced Caston to serve ten concurrent thirty-year terms for the convictions. The transcripts show the trial judge then stated to Caston that "[i]t was also the Court's understanding that in return for the guilty plea and for this offer you[, Caston,] have agreed to testify and fully cooperate in all other cases against co-defendants; is that correct?" Caston responded affirmatively.

¶13. As in Ross , Caston takes issue with his co-defendants’ allegedly lesser sentences and now claims his sentence was disproportionate. But the thirty-year concurrent sentences imposed by the trial court were also specifically identified as being recommendations of the State resulting from a plea agreement negotiated with Caston. Like Bester , Caston freely, voluntarily, and intelligently entered his guilty plea and sought to have the trial court honor his plea agreement by following the State's sentencing recommendation in light of his guilty plea. Similarly to Young , Caston voluntarily agreed to thirty-year concurrent sentences to avoid the imposition of a harsher sentence. Thus...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT