Case Title: Bence v. State

Citation: 240 So. 2d 630

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1970-11-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
240 So. 2d 630 (1970) John Seaton BENCE v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 45916. Supreme Court of Mississippi. November 2, 1970. Elliott E. Schlottman, Hattiesburg, for appellant. *631 A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Timmie Hancock, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. ROBERTSON, Justice. The appellant, John Seaton Bence, was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Forrest County, Mississippi, of the crime of forgery. He was sentenced to a term of eight years in the State Penitentiary. On February 12, 1969, the appellant purchased a ladies Elgin wristwatch from Tillman's Jewelers in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and handed to the sales clerk a forged Bankamericard with the name "Roy J. Dupre" imprinted thereon. The sales clerk wrote out a sales ticket, inserted the credit card and sales ticket in an imprint machine, and imprinted on the sales slip "Roy J. Dupre" and his credit card number. The appellant then signed the name, "Roy J. Dupre," on the sales slip. The clerk then handed the wristwatch and Bankamericard to the appellant. The appellant contends that twelve errors were committed by the trial court. We deem it necessary to discuss and answer only one of these. The appellant says that the offense with which he is charged has been specifically designated a misdemeanor in the "Mississippi Credit Card Crime Act of 1968." § 2148.7-08, Miss.Code of 1942 Ann. (Supp., 1968), being part of the said Credit Card Crime Act, provides: The appellant was not charged under § 2148.7-08, but was indicted under the general forgery statute, § 2173, Miss.Code of 1942 Ann. (1956). The offense of the appellant clearly fits under either statute and constitutes an offense under both. The same contention that the Credit Card Crime Act preempted the field and precluded prosecution under the general forgery statute was made in McCrory v. State, 210 So. 2d 877 (Miss. 1968), where a stolen Humble Oil and Refining Company credit card was used to obtain goods in the amount of $46.31 from Lee Dunn's Truck Stop in Hattiesburg. In McCrory the defendant had forged the credit card owner's name on the credit card sales slip or invoice evidencing the purchase. In specifically answering that contention, this Court said: The Legislature in § 2148.7-13 made its intent quite clear when it said: The general forgery statute was applicable and is not inconsistent with the terms of the Credit Card Crime Act. We think that the Legislature intended to give the prosecuting authority a choice as to what statute he would bring the charge under. This offense could very well have been brought under the Credit Card Crime Act. It involved the fraudulent purchase of a wristwatch valued at only $37.75. If it were larceny, it would be petit larceny, the value being under $100.00. Sec. 2242, Miss.Code of 1942 Ann. (Supp. 1968). It would have been much more appropriate to treat it as a misdemeanor. Of course, appellant in his motion for a continuance stated that there were nine forgery indictments pending against him, but the fact remains that in this case he was tried and sentenced for only one of these. The sentence of eight years is unusually harsh and severe; a much more appropriate sentence would have been one fitting within the limits set forth in the Credit Card Crime Act. Where the record is free of reversible error, we must affirm. We do not have the authority to reduce the sentence as we would prefer to do. Affirmed. ETHRIDGE, C.J., and RODGERS, PATTERSON, and SMITH, JJ., concur.