Robert W. Triplett v. State of Mississippi, 207 So. 3d 1288

Robert W. Triplett was convicted in state court of exploitation of a child and originally sentenced as a habitual offender; this Court previously reversed only the habitual-offender finding and remanded for resentencing.
On remand the trial court resentenced Triplett to 40 years (the statutory maximum for child exploitation) and ordered a $50,000 fine; the sentence was ordered to run consecutively to any sentence he was then serving.
Triplett’s appellate counsel filed a Lindsey brief (no arguable issues) and informed Triplett of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief; Triplett filed a pro se brief raising three issues.
Triplett’s pro se contentions: (1) 40-year sentence is effectively a life sentence given his age; (2) trial court denied his request to represent himself; and (3) trial court refused to reconsider his motion for a directed verdict.
The Court reviewed the Lindsey compliance, addressed Triplett’s pro se claims on the merits where appropriate, and ultimately affirmed the conviction and resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legality/length of sentence	40-year term is effectively life for a 61‑year‑old and thus illegal	Sentence is within statutory maximum for child exploitation	Affirmed — sentence within statutory limits; appellate review limited absent statutory exceedance
Consecutive sentencing	Triplett: consecutive state sentence is unfair because related to same search/evidence and federal conviction	Trial court: discretion to order concurrent or consecutive sentences	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion under Miss. Code § 99‑19‑21
Right to self-representation	Triplett: should have been allowed to represent himself	Record shows Triplett requested counsel, the court questioned him and appointed the Public Defender; he indicated he needed assistance	Denied — issue without merit; court properly appointed counsel
Denial/refusal to reconsider directed-verdict motion	Triplett: trial court refused to reconsider denial of directed verdict	Trial court treated the motion as not proper at resentencing and later as a PCR and denied it; appellate record insufficient to review	Declined to address merits — improper treatment as PCR and insufficient record; defendant did not pursue required PCR procedures

Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 2005) (procedure when appellate counsel finds no arguable issues)
Robbins v. California, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S. 2000) (value of counsel’s factual/procedural summary in no-merit briefs)
Cox v. State, 793 So. 2d 591 (Miss. 2001) (appellate courts need not consider issues not raised below)
Ballenger v. State, 667 So. 2d 1242 (Miss. 1995) (same)
Hoops v. State, 681 So. 2d 521 (Miss. 1996) (sentencing discretion and appellate review limited to statutory bounds)
Fleming v. State, 604 So. 2d 280 (Miss. 1992) (sentence not disturbed if within statutory maximum)
Cage v. State, 149 So. 3d 1038 (Miss. 2014) (appellate decline where record inadequate to resolve claim)
Triplett v. State, 145 So. 3d 1256 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (prior opinion reversing habitual-offender finding and remanding for resentencing)