 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Buice v. State11/9/1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/22/1998
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ANDREW C. BAKER
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: 06/22/1998: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 11/09/1999
. On June 22, 1998, Honorable Andrew Cleveland Baker denied Raymond Buice's second petition for post conviction relief. It is from this denial that Buice perfects his appeal to this Court and argues the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial Judge erred in denying his petition for post conviction relief, (2) whether the trial Judge erred in revoking his suspended sentence, and (3) whether his suspended sentence was unlawfully revoked and he is being unlawfully held in custody. Finding these arguments without merit, we affirm.
FACTS
. Buice was convicted on felony bad check charges, by guilty plea, entered on October 5, 1990, in Cause No. CR-90-30-B (P1). On October 19, 1990, Buice was convicted on a felony bad check charge, by guilty plea, entered on October 19,1990, in Cause No. CR-90-44-B (P2). Additionally, on October 19, 1990, the court imposed sentencing for Cause No. CR-90-30-B (P1) and Cause No. CR-90-44-B (P2).
. On October 19, 1990, in Cause No. CR-90-30-B(P1), the court imposed a separate sentence of three years on counts one, two, and three to run consecutively and ordered restitution. In Cause No. CR-90-44-B(P2), the court imposed a sentence of three years to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on CR-90-30-B(P1). The trial court then instructed Buice that the imposition of his sentence was suspended contingent on his good behavior, and on the condition that Buice made restitution at the rate of $100 per month beginning November 1, 1990.
. Subsequently, the State determined that Buice failed to meet the condition of good behavior and filed a petition to revoke suspended sentence and an amended petition to revoke sentence. On May 30, 1996, a revocation hearing was held, and the trial Judge held that Buice had violated the good behavior condition of his suspension. The trial Judge revoked the suspension of the sentence which had been issued on October 19, 1990.
. On August 11, 1997, Buice filed a petition for post conviction relief asserting that since his suspended sentence was revoked after five years it was unlawful and he was unlawfully being held in custody. On September 2, 1997, the trial Judge denied the petition. On April 24, 1998, Buice filed a second petition for post conviction relief which contained the same arguments as asserted in his aforementioned petition of August 11, 1997. On June 22, 1998, the trial Judge dismissed the petition for post conviction relief as res judicata.
ISSUES
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING BUICE'S PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF.
II. WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REVOKING THE SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF BUICE.
III. WHETHER BUICE'S SUSPENDED SENTENCE WAS UNLAWFULLY REVOKED AND HE IS UNLAWFULLY BEING HELD IN CUSTODY.
. This Court has reviewed the above referenced arguments asserted by Buice, the record, as well as applicable statutory and case law and concludes that Buice is procedurally barred on his successive petition for post conviction relief. Buice has raised the same arguments on appeal as those raised in his two prior petitions for post conviction relief. Those contentions being that the trial court erred when the Judge revoked his suspended sentence and he is currently being unlawfully held in the custody of the department of co
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|