Shumpert v. State, No. 1998-CP-01103-COA.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtBEFORE McMILLIN, C.J., LEE, AND MOORE, JJ.
Citation764 So.2d 1250
PartiesKevin Antonio SHUMPERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
Decision Date01 August 2000
Docket NumberNo. 1998-CP-01103-COA.

764 So.2d 1250

Kevin Antonio SHUMPERT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Mississippi, Appellee

No. 1998-CP-01103-COA.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

August 1, 2000.


764 So.2d 1251
Kevin Antonio Shumpert, Appellant, pro se

Office of the Attorney General by Jeffrey A. Klingfuss, Attorneys for Appellee.

BEFORE McMILLIN, C.J., LEE, AND MOORE, JJ.

MOORE, J., for the Court:

¶ 1. Appellant Kevin Antonio Shumpert pled guilty to one count of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute and one count of sale of cocaine and received twenty-year suspended prison sentences on each charge. The Lee County Circuit Court revoked Shumpert's suspended sentences and ordered that he be placed in the custody and control of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Shumpert moved the trial court for post conviction relief which was summarily denied. Shumpert complains on appeal that the trial court's revocation of his suspended sentences did not comport with the United States and Mississippi constitutional due process requirements and that the banishment provision was illegal. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS

¶ 2. June 15, 1995, Appellant Kevin Antonio Shumpert pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and one count of sale of cocaine. The trial court sentenced Shumpert to twenty years on each count and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. The trial court suspended the sentences upon the condition that Shumpert commit no offense against the laws of this or any other state. The trial court also banished Shumpert from any area in Mississippi north of Highway 82 for twenty years.

¶ 3. January 10, 1997, Shumpert was caught with crack cocaine. After a hearing on January 30, 1997, the trial court revoked the suspended sentences and ordered that Shumpert serve the twenty years in a facility to be designated by the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Aggrieved, Shumpert moved for post conviction relief (PCR) which the trial court summarily denied. In denying the PCR motion, the trial court found that Shumpert failed to make out a prima facie case entitling him to an evidentiary hearing. Specifically, the trial court found that a full revocation hearing was held and that sufficient proof was put on to find that Shumpert possessed crack cocaine, a violation of the first condition of Shumpert's suspended sentences.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

I. WAS SHUMPERT DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN THE TRIAL COURT REVOKED HIS SENTENCES?

¶ 4. Shumpert acknowledges that a trial court can revoke a suspended sentence but argues that it may only do so if the court also imposed a probationary period. Shumpert's "problem" is that the trial court did not impose a probationary period when it suspended his sentences. Shumpert argues that even if a court has the authority to suspend a sentence without imposing a probationary period, "it does not logically follow that the court could thereafter revoke the suspended...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Carroll v. State, No. 2012–CP–00887–COA.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • 27 Agosto 2013
    ...sentence was revoked within five years even though sentence listed no specific probationary period); see also Shumpert v. State, 764 So.2d 1250, 1252–53 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2000). 3.McCreary v. State, 582 So.2d 425, 427 (Miss.1991). 4.Mackey v. State, 37 So.3d 1161, 1167 (¶ 23) (Miss.2010). ......
  • Knickel v. State, No. 1998-KA-01767-COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 1 Agosto 2000
    ...substantive matters. Failure to raise a timely objection will bar the issue on appeal. Smith v. State, 724 So.2d 280 (¶ 168) (Miss.1998). 764 So.2d 1250 ¶ 16. However, if the objection was properly presented before Knickel's cross-examination entered substantive matters, then the court must......
2 cases
  • Carroll v. State, No. 2012–CP–00887–COA.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • 27 Agosto 2013
    ...sentence was revoked within five years even though sentence listed no specific probationary period); see also Shumpert v. State, 764 So.2d 1250, 1252–53 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2000). 3.McCreary v. State, 582 So.2d 425, 427 (Miss.1991). 4.Mackey v. State, 37 So.3d 1161, 1167 (¶ 23) (Miss.2010). ......
  • Knickel v. State, No. 1998-KA-01767-COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 1 Agosto 2000
    ...substantive matters. Failure to raise a timely objection will bar the issue on appeal. Smith v. State, 724 So.2d 280 (¶ 168) (Miss.1998). 764 So.2d 1250 ¶ 16. However, if the objection was properly presented before Knickel's cross-examination entered substantive matters, then the court must......

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