Shinn v. State
74 So. 3d 901
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Shinn was indicted on four counts for forgeries involving checks on Mary Bush's account; Counts III and IV were dismissed without prejudice in exchange for guilty pleas to Counts I and II.
- At sentencing, each count carried a 2–10 year range; Shinn received four years MDOC and five years PRS on each count, plus restitution and a $750 fine; the judge announced the sentences would run consecutively, but the two sentencing orders entered later were silent on concurrent/consecutive scope.
- MDOC treated the orders as concurrent, discharging Shinn from custodial terms on July 4, 2007, after which PRS terms began; Shinn later violated PRS conditions and the court revoked PRS in November 2008, imposing two 2.5-year custodial terms followed by 2.5 years PRS on each count, with Count II stated to run consecutively to the revocation of Count I.
- In May 2009, after transcripts were filed, the court entered an order stating the original sentences were concurrent; in December 2009, the circuit court summarily dismissed Shinn’s PCR and again stated concurrent sentences; in February 2010, the court sua sponte ordered the original sentences to run consecutively, and that order was included in the appellate record.
- Shinn challenged the revocation and modification orders, arguing the original concurrent sentences could not be lawfully altered to consecutive, and that the latter orders violated jurisdiction and double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred by restructuring concurrent to consecutive on revocation | Shinn contends concurrent sentences could not be changed to consecutive after serving. | State contends discretion exists to run sentences concurrently or consecutively; post-appeal orders may alter | Reversed; modification to consecutive was unlawful; original concurrent sentences are affirmed; remanded for lawful concurrent sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. State, 430 So. 2d 851 (Miss.1983) (limits court’s power to modify sentence after term expires)
- Anderson v. State, 288 So. 2d 852 (Miss.1974) (ambiguities in sentencing orders construed in the convict’s favor)
- Boutwell v. State, 847 So.2d 294 (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (written sentencing orders prevail over oral pronouncements)
- Temple v. State, 671 So.2d 58 (Miss.1996) (written order is the final judgment)
- Corporate Management, Inc. v. Greene County, 23 So. 3d 454 (Miss.2009) (appeal transfers jurisdiction; lower court cannot modify decree during appeal)
- Kitchens v. State, 253 Miss. 734 (Miss.1965) (scrivener/clerical errors may be corrected, but not to alter judgments after appeal)
- Harvey v. State, 919 So.2d 282 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (acknowledges correction of errors; jurisdictional concerns)
- Fields v. State, 840 So.2d 796 (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (illustrates correction of sentencing issues; not dispositive here)