Doss v. State
119 So. 3d 1070
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Doss was indicted in 2006 for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy to transfer a controlled substance.
- In 2007 the State moved to amend the indictment to charge Doss as a subsequent drug offender under Miss. Code Ann. 41-29-147.
- Doss negotiated a plea in which the State would recommend 24 years for Count I and dismiss Count II.
- On November 18, 2008 the circuit court accepted the guilty plea and scheduled sentencing for November 21, 2008.
- Doss failed to appear at sentencing on November 21, 2008; the court sentenced him to 50 years as a subsequent offender.
- In 2011, Doss filed a PCR motion that the circuit court dismissed; he appeals challenging the sentence and the indictment amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court’s deviation from the State’s recommendation was error | Doss argues the court erred by not following the recommendation and he should be allowed to withdraw plea. | State asserts the court was free to reject the recommendation and not bound by it. | No error; court not bound by recommendation if explained. |
| Whether amending the indictment after a guilty plea was improper | Doss contends amendment after plea prejudiced him. | State contends amendment timely and did not unfairly surprise Doss. | No error; amendment timely and not unfairly surprising; sentencing just affected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Callins v. State, 975 So.2d 219 (Miss. 2008) (trial court not bound by plea agreement terms unless party to deal)
- Martin v. State, 635 So.2d 1352 (Miss. 1994) (reneging on a deal requires being part of the deal)
- Rhone v. State, 957 So.2d 1018 (Miss.Ct.App. 2006) (unexcused failure to appear does not breach plea agreement when terms explained)
- Wells v. State, 57 So.3d 40 (Miss.Ct.App. 2011) (amendment allowed when defendant not unfairly surprised and defense fair)
- Burrell v. State, 726 So.2d 160 (Miss. 1998) (habitual- or subsequent-offender status amendments affect sentencing, not offense substance)
- Williams v. State, 766 So.2d 815 (Miss.Ct.App. 2000) (prohibition against surprise in enhancements; standards for amendments)