Mosley v. State
104 So. 3d 839
| Miss. | 2012Background
- Mosley was convicted by jury of three drug offenses: selling cocaine, selling methamphetamine, and selling marijuana (less than 30 grams).
- The State amended Mosley’s indictment to charge him as a habitual offender and as a subsequent drug offender under Mississippi law.
- At sentencing, Mosley received 60-year terms for cocaine and methamphetamine, and a 6-year term for marijuana, with all sentences running consecutively for a total of 126 years.
- The court doubled each maximum sentence due to habitual offender status and then applied consecutive sentencing under statute.
- The defense argued the 126-year sentence was grossly disproportionate and cruel/unusual under the Eighth Amendment, warranting Solem proportionality review.
- The majority affirmed, holding the sentence within statutory limits and not grossly disproportionate; the dissent would remand for further consideration under Presley/Davis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is 126-year sentence cruel and unusual punishment? | Mosley argues gross disproportionality under Solem. | State maintains sentence is not grossly disproportionate given offenses and recidivist status. | No gross disproportionality; within statutory limits; proportionality not required. |
| Was the sentence properly imposed under habitual/subsequent offender statutes? | Mosley contends procedures insufficient for enhanced penalties. | State shows habitual offender status and proper application of Section 41-29-147. | Proper application of habitual/subsequent offender statutes; sentences justified. |
| Was the absence of a presentence investigation a reversible error? | Dissent argues record lacking mitigation/egregious factors; remand warranted. | Sentencing discretion lies with trial court; presentence report not always required. | Not reversible error in majority view; no mandatory remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (proportionality test thresholds for Eighth Amendment review)
- White v. State, 742 So.2d 1126 (Miss. 1999) (severity of sentence for first offender near church examined; not always disproportionate)
- Davis v. State, 724 So.2d 342 (Miss. 1998) (remand possible when sentencing record lacks mitigation details)
- Williams v. State, 794 So.2d 181 (Miss. 2001) (discusses enhanced sentencing and habitual offender context (not overturning))