Chancellor v. State, 2000-CP-01245-COA.
| Decision Date | 25 September 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 2000-CP-01245-COA.,2000-CP-01245-COA. |
| Citation | 809 So.2d 700 |
| Parties | William CHANCELLOR a/k/a Michael Paige a/k/a Michael Jones, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee. |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
William Chancellor, Pro Se.
Office of the Attorney General, by Deirdre McCrory, Attorney for Appellee.
Before McMILLIN, C.J., THOMAS, and CHANDLER, JJ.
THOMAS, J., for the court:
¶ 1. William Chancellor, pro se, appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Aggrieved, Chancellor perfected this appeal, raising the following issues as error:
I. THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED MANIFEST ERROR IN DISMISSING CHANCELLOR'S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
FACTS
¶ 2. On February 1, 1990, Chancellor pled guilty to receiving stolen goods and was sentenced to a term of five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections with four years suspended and a term of one year to serve concurrently with a revocation proceeding in a separate cause.
¶ 3. Thereafter, Chancellor was tried and convicted of armed robbery which occurred on May 31, 1995. Utilizing his prior conviction of receiving stolen goods to enhance his sentence, the trial court sentenced Chancellor as an habitual offender to a term of life imprisonment.
¶ 4. Because his conviction of receiving stolen goods was utilized to enhance his sentence for armed robbery, Chancellor filed a motion for post-conviction relief on June 20, 2000, seeking to set aside the judgment entered on February 1, 1990. The lower court dismissed this motion citing the statutory time bar limitation as set out in Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2). It is from this motion for post-conviction relief that Chancellor now appeals.
ANALYSIS
¶ 5. In reviewing a trial court's decision to deny a motion for post-conviction relief the standard of review is clear. The trial court's denial will not be reversed absent a finding that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous. Kirksey v. State, 728 So.2d 565, 567 (Miss.1999).
I. DID THE LOWER COURT COMMIT MANIFEST ERROR IN DISMISSING CHANCELLOR'S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF?
¶ 6. It is clear that Chancellor's motion for post-conviction relief was time barred by the three year statute of limitations imposed by Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev.2000). Chancellor argues that the time bar is circumvented because he had previously been convicted of a felony, therefore, the court did not have the authority to impose a partially suspended sentence upon his plea of guilty to the charge of receiving stolen goods.
¶ 7. Chancellor accurately cites Miss.Code Ann. § 47-7-33 in support of the claim that a sentence is not subject to suspension or probation when the defendant has prior felony offenses. Chancellor also accurately cites United States v. Sine, 461 F.Supp. 565, 568 (D.S.C.1978), as precedent supporting the right to be free from an illegal sentence as a fundamental right. It is also true that "errors which affect fundamental constitutional rights may be excepted from procedural bars which would otherwise prohibit their considerations." Moss v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sykes v. State
...v. State, 864 So.2d 283, 286(¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (citing McGleachie v. State, 800 So.2d 561 (Miss.Ct.App.2001); Chancellor v. State, 809 So.2d 700 (Miss.Ct.App.2001); Edwards v. State, 839 So.2d 578 (Miss.Ct.App.2003); Graves v. State, 822 So.2d 1089 ¶ 20. The case at bar falls within ......
-
Jefferson v. State, 2006-CP-00492-COA.
... ... (citing Graves, 822 So.2d at 1091 (¶ 8); McGleachie v. State, 800 So.2d 561 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App. 2001); Chancellor v. State, 809 So.2d 700 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App. 2001)). Similarly, because Jefferson benefitted from the allegedly illegal sentence imposed by the ... ...
-
Hargett v. State, 2002-CP-00545-COA.
...and sentence aside because the judge was lenient. ¶ 12. McGleachie v. State, 800 So.2d 561 (Miss.Ct.App.2001), Chancellor v. State, 809 So.2d 700 (Miss.Ct.App.2001), Edwards v. State, 839 So.2d 578 (Miss.Ct. App.2003), and Graves v. State, 822 So.2d 1089 (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (cert. denied May......
-
Garner v. State
...Further, when the error benefits the defendant in the form of a more lenient sentence, it is harmless error. Chancellor v. State, 809 So.2d 700, 702 (Miss.Ct. App.2001). The law which relieves defendants from the burden of an illegal sentence applies to situations where the defendant is for......