Mock v. State
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 782
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Mock pleaded guilty to four charges across four indictments and received sentences per a plea agreement, with two additional indictments retired to the file.
- He timely moved for post-conviction relief challenging these sentences; the circuit court denied the motion.
- Mock’s indictments included CR08-180 (conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine) and CR08-193, CR08-195, CR08-197 (false pretense).
- The circuit court imposed lengthy MDOC terms, some suspended, with consecutive terms to a prior sentence in CR98-095; sentences were to run concurrently with certain other counts.
- Co-defendants received lesser sentences; Mock’s motion challenged multiple judgments in a single post-conviction petition.
- The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed, holding no error in the denial of post-conviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of motion challenging multiple judgments | Mock challenged four judgments in one motion | Code §99-39-9(2) requires separate motions for each judgment | No reversible error; ruling on multiple judgments in one motion was harmless |
| Whether Mock's sentence was grossly disproportionate | Disproportionality to co-defendants | Sentences were within the plea agreement and statutory maximums; sentencing is discretionary | Not grossly disproportionate; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowell v. State, 801 So.2d 747 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (standard for review of post-conviction denials; clearly erroneous unless mistaken)
- Kirksey v. State, 728 So.2d 565 (Miss.1999) (deference on post-conviction findings; clear error standard)
- Becker v. State, 49 So.2d 1157 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (de novo review for questions of law)
- Lambert v. State, 941 So.2d 804 (Miss.2006) (clarifies deference in mixed questions of law and fact)
- McGilvery v. State, 497 So.2d 67 (Miss.1986) (disproportionality analysis when guilty plea context varies by case)
- Addison v. State, 957 So.2d 1039 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (guilty plea sentencing generally within discretion; not reviewable)
- Wells v. State, 936 So.2d 479 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (sentencing discretion post-plea; within statutory max)
- Powell v. State, 49 So.3d 166 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (three-factor test for gross disproportionality)
- Hundley v. State, 803 So.2d 1225 (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (illustrative on post-conviction review limitations)
- Bell v. State, 2 So.3d 747 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (harmless error in single-issue adjudications)