 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
White v. State8/17/1999
avis, 724 So. 2d at 344. With this, the court set forth the requirement that the trial Judge justify any sentence that appears harsh or severe for the charge, as is the case regarding appellant White's sentence.
. Reviewing the trial court's record in the present case, we find that the trial Judge did attempt to explain his reasons for the sentence ultimately imposed. However, his reasons are unclear concerning whether egregious circumstances exist to justify such a sentence; thus, the Davis standard is not met.
. To refute White's argument that his conviction and sentence should be overturned, the appellee cites other similar Mississippi cases in which a harsh sentence was imposed for a small sale of cocaine. Nonetheless, this Court is bound to follow Davis which requires the trial Judge state his reasons more clearly for imposing the maximum sentence:
"We recognize it is properly within the purview of the Legislature to determine the range of sentences, enunciating our citizens' determination of the social impact of harmful behavior. We equally well recognize that our circuit Judges, present throughout criminal trials and observing in detail the testimony and evidence, are uniquely suited to apply a range of sentences to specific offenses . . . Occasionally however, cases come before us in which sentences may be so severe as to appear on the record inexplicable and justify remanding the matter to the trial court for further consideration." Davis, 724 So. 2d at 344-45.
This Court recognizes the authority of the legislature to provide a range of sentencing and also recognizes such sentencing is left to the discretion of the trial court. With the Davis case, however, we also recognize the trial court must do more than pass judgment -- the Judge must state specific reasons for sentencing.
. This Court would advise the trial Judge to address the issues of defendant's age, prior record (including juvenile), and whether defendant engaged in a high volume of drug business and explain the relevance of each in setting the sentence in the present case.
. Issue III regarding the sentence should be reversed and remanded to allow such explanation in compliance with Davis.
CONCLUSION
. The law does not support appellant's contentions that the trial court was wrong in denying appellant's motion for JNOV and in not accepting the Batson question for further review. Therefore, the findings of the lower court on each of these two issues are affirmed.
. With regard to the sentencing issue, we now reverse and remand to allow the trial court to re-sentence in conformity to Davis.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION OF SALE OF COCAINE IN A CHURCH ZONE AND SENTENCE OF SIXTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO COPIAH COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING, P.J., BRIDGES, DIAZ, IRVING, LEE, AND THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR. SOUTHWICK, P.J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. MOORE, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
|