148 So. 3d 1038
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Hampton was convicted on Oct. 4, 2011 of armed robbery as a habitual offender and sentenced to 20 years in MDOC.
- Bank teller described Hampton's appearance and weapon during the Dec. 2, 2010 robbery; money taken and panic button pressed.
- Hampton was indicted March 23, 2011; evidence included eyewitness identifications from a photographic lineup.
- At sentencing Oct. 31, 2011, the court stated the term should be less than life and served day-for-day without early release or good time.
- Hampton argued the sentence should reflect his life expectancy and proposed actuarial tables.
- Hampton did not object at trial, and his appeal argued the sentence was illegal for exceeding his life expectancy; the issue was raised on appeal via plain-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 20-year sentence exceeded life expectancy | Hampton’s life expectancy is under 20 years | Hampton argues life expectancy should be lower due to age, race, sex, location, alcoholism | No, sentence not illegal; 19.5 years is less than average life expectancy. |
| Whether the issue was properly preserved for appeal | Actuarial tables show shorter life expectancy | Tables attached to brief cannot be reviewed as part of record | Actuarial tables not reviewable from briefs; even if noticed, still insufficient to show error. |
| Whether life expectancy factors beyond average American are permissible | Court should consider age, race, gender, residence | Such factors impermissible for maximum sentence | Court properly used average life expectancy; other factors not controlling. |
| Whether the sentence violated section 97-3-79 and life-expectancy logic | Sentence should be less than life; not exceed life expectancy | Judicial discretion allowed since life-expectancy not exceeded | No reversible error; sentence reasonably calculated to be less than life. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242 (Miss. 1995) (preservation and error standard in sentencing challenges)
- Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280 (Miss. 1992) (maximum term must be within statutory bounds)
- Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521 (Miss. 1996) (sentence not disturbed if within statutory maximum)
- Ponder v. State, 335 So.2d 885 (Miss. 1976) (court will not decide on matter not presented to it)