Eric James Foster v. State of Mississippi
2014 Miss. LEXIS 514
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Eric Foster (age 35) was convicted by a jury of armed robbery; the jury did not recommend a sentence. The trial court imposed a 40-year term.\
- At sentencing a victim gave a detailed impact statement; Foster protested innocence and used profane language; no contemporaneous objection to sentence was made.\
- Foster did not present actuarial, mortality, or life‑expectancy evidence at trial or argue the court erred by failing to consider it.\
- On appeal Foster argued for the first time that 40 years amounted to a de facto life sentence (exceeding his life expectancy) and therefore was illegal. The Court of Appeals held the claim procedurally barred but nonetheless found the sentence legal.\
- The Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to whether Foster’s sentence was illegal and affirmed, holding the claim was not preserved and the sentence was within statutory limits.\
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Foster) | Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 40‑year judicial sentence "amounts to" an illegal life sentence when longer than defendant's actuarial life expectancy | 40 years exceeds Foster’s actuarial life expectancy and thus is the functional equivalent of life; sentence is illegal | Sentence is within statutory bounds for judge‑imposed term and not life; no evidence of life expectancy was presented at trial | Held: For appellate review Foster’s claim is procedurally barred and sentence is legal because it does not exceed statutory maximum and was within judge’s discretion |
| Whether appellate court may consider actuarial/life‑expectancy evidence not presented to trial court | Foster: Court may consider actuarial tables presented on appeal to show illegality | State: Courts cannot consider evidence not part of the trial record; issues must be preserved below | Held: Appellate courts will not consider matters outside the record; Foster failed to preserve issue by not presenting evidence at trial |
| Whether Stewart v. State requires that judge‑imposed sentences be "reasonably expected to be less than life" | Foster relies on Stewart and related precedent: judge must consider life expectancy when jury declines life sentence | State argues sentencing discretion remains so long as sentence is within statutory limits (and Stewart does not create a statute) | Held: Majority enforces preservation and statutory limits; sentence upheld. (Separate opinions debate overruling Stewart.) |
| Whether plain‑error review applies to an unpreserved claim that a sentence is illegal | Foster: Illegal‑sentence challenges implicate fundamental rights and may be reviewed under plain error | State: No plain error shown; no record evidence of life expectancy; sentence within statute | Held: No plain error shown; Foster failed to demonstrate manifest miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. State, 662 So.2d 1100 (Miss. 1995) (appellate courts confined to the trial record)\
- Cox v. State, 793 So.2d 591 (Miss. 2001) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve sentencing claims)\
- Stewart v. State, 372 So.2d 257 (Miss. 1979) (judge‑imposed term should be a definite term reasonably expected to be less than life)\
- Grayer v. State, 120 So.3d 964 (Miss. 2013) (illegal sentence defined as one exceeding statutory maximum)\
- Johnson v. State, 29 So.3d 738 (Miss. 2009) (life‑expectancy charts of limited utility; estimates vary)\
- Lindsay v. State, 720 So.2d 182 (Miss. 1998) (upholding a sentence where defendant failed to present life‑expectancy evidence)\
- Tate v. State, 912 So.2d 919 (Miss. 2005) (upholding very long term that for practical purposes amounted to life where within statutory scheme)\
- Cannon v. State, 919 So.2d 913 (Miss. 2005) (distinguishes armed robbery line where statute limits life sentences to jury recommendation)