148 So. 3d 992
Miss.2014Background
- Hampton (63) convicted of armed robbery; sentenced by judge to 20 years as a habitual offender and credited with time served. No jury recommendation of life was made.
- At sentencing the State presented Hampton’s prior convictions; Hampton testified about his age and alcoholism but offered no actuarial/mortality/life-expectancy tables or related evidence.
- Hampton moved for new trial/JNOV arguing the sentence was harsh; he did not object at trial that the 20-year term equated to a life sentence or present life-expectancy proof. Motion denied.
- On appeal Hampton for the first time argued the 20-year term exceeded his life expectancy (thus amounting to a de facto life sentence that only a jury could impose). Court of Appeals found the claim procedurally barred but nonetheless held sentence was not life.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to whether the trial court erred by imposing 20 years that equates to life; the Court affirmed, holding the claim was procedurally barred and the sentence was within statutory limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hampton’s 20-year term "equates to" a life sentence such that only a jury could impose life | Hampton: 20 years exceeded his life expectancy (age, race, gender) so it amounted to life and was illegal unless jury imposed life | State: sentence within statutory limits; Hampton failed to preserve life-expectancy evidence/objection at trial | Held: Claim procedurally barred for failure to object/present evidence below; sentence within statutory limits and not illegal |
| Whether appellate court may consider life-expectancy studies and actuarial data first raised on appeal | Hampton: Court may consider actuarial evidence presented on appeal to show sentence illegal | State: appellate review confined to record; new evidence outside record not considered | Held: Court will not consider matters not in trial record; new studies and arguments rejected |
| Whether exception to procedural bar applies for alleged illegal sentence or constitutional error | Hampton: alleged illegal sentence is a fundamental error excepted from procedural bar | State: no constitutional argument shown; claim framed as unreasonable/harsh, not unconstitutional | Held: No constitutional basis shown; no exception applies; claim not preserved |
| Whether trial judge abused sentencing discretion despite no life jury recommendation | Hampton: imposition effectively life relative to his expectancy | State: judge considered offered evidence (age, health, criminal history) and stayed within statute | Held: No abuse of discretion; sentencing within statutory and constitutional limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. State, 372 So.2d 257 (Miss. 1979) (trial judge’s term must be a definite term reasonably expected to be less than life)
- Stewart v. State, 394 So.2d 1337 (Miss. 1981) (trial courts may take judicial notice of mortality tables)
- Cox v. State, 793 So.2d 591 (Miss. 2001) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve sentencing claim on appeal)
- Johnson v. State, 29 So.3d 738 (Miss. 2009) (life-expectancy estimates are of limited utility; estimated life expectancy is only an approximation)
- Rowland v. State, 98 So.3d 1032 (Miss. 2012) (exceptions to procedural bars for errors affecting certain constitutional rights)
- Henderson v. State, 402 So.2d 325 (Miss. 1981) (judges may take judicial notice of life-expectancy charts)