Cooper v. StateCooper v. State
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Sunflower County wherein appellant‘s petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied. A motion for reconsideration filed March 1, 1982, was also denied. Aggrieved with the lower court‘s dismissal of his petition, appellant has perfected his appeal to this Court.
On August 25, 1978, the appellant having pled guilty to the December 12, 1977 commission of the crime of armed robbery was sentenced to serve a term of ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections to run concurrently with a sentence of six years which he was presently serving.
He does not attack the legality of his sentence but asserts the lower court erred in finding he was not eligible to reduce his sentence with the grant of administrative good time pursuant to
No inmate in any event shall have his sentence terminated by administrative earned time action until he is eligible for parole as provided in Title 47, Chapter 7, Mississippi Code of 1972.
Appellant‘s parole status is governed by
No person shall be eligible for parole who shall on or after January 1, 1977, be convicted of robbery or attempted robbery through the display of a firearm until he shall have served ten (10) years if sentenced to a term or terms of more than ten (10) years or if sentenced for the term of the natural life of such person. If such person is sentenced to a term or terms of ten (10) years or less, then such person shall not be eligible for parole.1 (Emphasis added).
Therefore, earned [good] time credits do not apply to this inmate as he will not be eligible for parole because he must serve his full sentence of ten years.
He argues that he falls within an exception to the law, contending, “The statute bars those people that are eligible to become parole consideration individuals from terminating their sentences with earned time before they become eligible for parole. The statue [sic] do not bar those from earning credits towards their sentences that are permanently ineligible for parole consideration as Appellant.” For us to so hold would be an absurdity.
In our opinion, since appellant is not entitled to parole because he must serve his full ten-year sentence (
Appellant‘s contention that the lower court erred in failing to order an evidentiary hearing on his claims is found to be without merit.
For the above stated reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court denying the writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.
LOWER COURT‘S DENIAL OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AFFIRMED.
PATTERSON, C.J., BROOM, P.J., and ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING, HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.