I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 5 - CT - 0 0 0 7 1 - S CT OL AN CA L L I NS
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 27/ 2005 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. P AUL S
. F UND ERB URK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: ALCORN COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: PRO SE AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY: CHARLE S W
. M ARI S , J R. DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: J OHN R
. YOUNG NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST CON VI CTI ON RELI EF DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF THE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S R E VE R S E D. T HE J UD GM E NT O F T H E A L C O R N C O U N T Y C IR C U IT CO UR T D EN Y I N G TH E M O TI ON FOR POSTCO NVI CT I ON R E L I E F I S RE I NS T AT E D AND A FFIRM E D - 02/ 21/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. O l an C al l i ns a ppeal ed the A l corn Count y Ci r cui tCourt ’s j ud gm ent deny i ng r el i ef
u n d e r th e M iss iss ip p i U n ifo rm P o st-C o n v ictio n C o llate ra l R e lief A c t. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
rev erse d the tri al c o u rtjud g m en t an d rem an d ed this c ase to the tri al co u rtfor a n ev iden ti ary

### After in dictment, Callin s executed a swo rn affidav it of indig encystating , inter a lia , 1 

### that h e was unemp loy ed an d h ad n o real o r perso nal p rop erty to emplo y retain ed co un sel. The r el evanceof this fa ct wil l be com e e vide nt l at er in t his opini on. 2 hear i ng on the i s s ue of w hetherC al l i ns detr i m ent al l y rel i ed on t he pl ea a gr eement , thus in v a lid a tin g th e p e n ite n tia ry s e n te n c e im p o s e d u p o n h im
. Ca llin s v. S ta te , 2007 M i s s . A pp. L E X IS 2 4 3 (A p r. 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 ), r ’ hg deni ed , 2 0 0 7 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 6 1 9 (S ep t. 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 ). H o w e v e r, w e g ra n te d th e S ta te ’s p e titio n fo r w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri
. Ca llin s v . S ta te , 20 07 M i ss. L E XI S 6 5 5 ( No v . 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 )
. Ha v i n g n o w c o n s i d e r e d t h e c r i t i c a l i s s u e r a i s e d o n a p p e a l , we f i nd thatthe j udgm entof the C our tof

A ppeal s s houl d be r ever s ed, and the j udgm entof the A lc o rn C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u rt s h o u ld b e re in s ta te d a n d a ff ir m e d
. F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2
. O n Ju ly 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , O lan C all ins, w ith h is c o u rt -ap p o inted co u n sel, ap p e a re d b efo re 1 the C i r cui tC our tof

A l corn C ount y, J udge Shar i on R. A ycock, pr es i di ng, a nd of f er ed a pl ea of gui l ty t o a gr and j ury i ndi ctm entchar gi ng hi m w i th pos s es s i on of a quant i ty of
m et ham ph et am i ne, a S ched ule I I cont rol l ed sub st ance b eing m ore than t en g ram s but l ess th a n th i r ty g r a ms , i n v i o l a t i o n o f M i s s i s s i p p i Co d e An n o t a t e d S e c t i o n 4 1
- 2 9
- 1 3 9 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( D) ( R ev. 2005)
. J udge A ycock c onduct ed an e xhaus t i ve exa m i nat i on of C al l i ns i n the pr es ence
o f his att o rne y an d the a ssist an t distri ct att o rne y co n ce rnin g the v o lun tari n ess o f C all ins’s gui l ty pl ea. A tJ udge A ycock’ s r eques t , the as s i s t antdi s tr i ctatt orney announc ed on the
r ecor d the pl ea a gr eementr eac hed b et w een t he St at e and the def endant( w hi ch pr ovi ded, in tera lia , f

orf or f ei tur e of c ert ai n i t ems by C al l i ns and a j oi nts ent ence r ecomm endat i on ofC al l i ns l i kew i s e f i l ed a pro se m ot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l ty pl ea, al l egi ng thathe w as 2 m i s l ed by the pr os ecut or ’ s s ent ence r ecomm endat i on of a p robat i onary s ent ence w hen he cl ear l y w as notent i t l ed t o a pr obat i onary s ent ence pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 47- 7- 33 si nce he had a pr i orfe l ony convi ct i on. T he r ecor d does notr ef l ectthatthe tri al j ud ge ev er ruled on C al l i ns’s pro se m ot i on; how ever , even i f w e w er e t o cons i dert he m eri t s of these al l egati on s, the issu e rai sed i n C al l i ns’s pro se m ot i on i s r ender ed moot by thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n J o h n so n v. S ta te , 9 2 5 S o . 2 d 8 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ).



### 3 t en yea r s ’ i m pr i s onm ent , butcr edi tf ort i m e s erved i n cus t ody and s us pens i on of the bal ance of the s entence)
. J udge A ycock i nf or m ed C al l i ns thati f

s he ac cept ed hi s gui l ty pl ea,
s ent enci ng w oul d be def err ed and a notherj ud ge w oul d i m pos e the s ent ence . A tthe concl us i on of

the pl ea co l l oquy, J udge A ycock de t erm i ned thatC al l i ns ’ s gui l ty pl ea w as fr eel y an d v olunt ari l y o ff ered, and she thu s accepted C al l i ns’s plea of gu i l ty an d setthe case f ors ubs equents ent enci ng by a di f f er entj udge. ¶3
. O n A u g u st 5, 20 0 4 , C all ins a p p ea red w ith c o u n sel b efo re th e C ir cu itC o u rto f A lcorn C ounty, J udge Paul S. Funderbur k p res i di ng. N otw i ths t andi ng the j oi nts ent ence
r ecomm endat i on w hi ch, i f acce pt ed, w oul d have al l ow ed C al l i ns t o s erve hi s s ent ence f r ee fr o m in c a rc e ra tio n , Ju d g e F u n d e rb u rk se n ten c e d C a lli n s to se rv e a ter m o f tw e n ty y e a rs in the cus t ody of

the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons , w i th tw el ve yea r s s us pended a nd ei ghtyear s t o s erve, f

ol l ow ed by f

i ve year s of pos t - r el eas e supe rvi s i on. Feel i ng aggr i eved by J udge Funderbur k’ s f ai l ur e t o s ent ence hi m cons i s t entw i th the j oi nts ent ence
rec o m m en d ati o n , C all ins, th rou g h co u n sel, fi led a M o ti o n to C lari fy S en tenc ing O rde r, C onductD ue Pr oces s H ear i ng, ori n the A l t ernat i ve, t o G r antR el i ef U nderPostC onvi ct i on R e lief A c t. Ju d g e F u n d e rb u rk , w ith o u t c o n d u c tin g a n e v id e n tiary h e a rin g , su b se q u e n tly

2

### We feel comfo rtable in mak ing this statement inasmu ch as th e dissent addresses on ly 3 

### thethird i ss ue. 4 ent er ed an or derdenyi ng C al l i ns ’ s m ot i on, f r om w hi ch C al l i ns appea l ed. T hi s cas e w as assi gn ed to the C ou rtof A pp eal s.

PROCEEDI NG S I N THE C OU RT OF APPE ALS ¶4. O n appea l , C al l i ns r ai s ed i s s ues co ncerni ng w hetherthe t ri al judge err ed i n ( 1)
r ef us i ng t o s ent ence C al l i ns consi s t entw i th the j oi nts ent ence r ecomm endat i on; ( 2) i m pos i ng
a se n ten c e w h ich e x c e e d e d th e m a x im u m p e n a lty p ro v id e d b y sta tu te; a n d (3 ) re fu sin g to g ra n t an e v id e n tiary h e a rin g o n C a lli n s’s p o st-c o n v ictio n g rie v a n c e s. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls app ropr i at el y r es t at ed the i s s ues t o be ( 1) w hetherC al l i ns ’ s gui l ty pl ea w as f r eel y, k n o w in g ly , an d v o lu n tar ily e n ter e d ; (2 ) w h e th e r th e trial ju d g e a b u se d h is d isc re tio n in im p o sing sen tenc e; an d (3) w h ethe r C all ins w as en ti tl ed t o an ev iden ti ary he aring on h is
m ot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef
. W hi l e ther e appe ar ed t o be no di s agr eementamong t he
m ember s of

the C our tof

A ppeal s on the f

i r s ttw o i s s ues , the m aj or i ty’ s tr eatm entof I s s ue 3 I I I gener at e d a di s s e ntf r om J ud ge Car l t on , a nd he rdi s s e ntw a s j oi ne d b y Pr e s i di ng J udge M y e r s . W e a g r e e wi th th e Co u r to f Ap p e a l s i n i t s tr e a t me n ta n d d i s p o s i t i o n o f th e f i r s ttwo i ssues; theref

ore, having grant ed cert i orar i , w e l i m i tthe q uest i on on t od ay’s r eview
. M i ss. R
. A p p . P
. 1 7 (h). ¶5. I n a s even- tw o opi ni on ( one j udge notpart i ci pat i ng) , the C our tof A ppeal s f

ound that
w hi l e C al l i ns ’ s gui l ty pl ea w as f r eel y, know i ngl y, and vol unt ar i l y ent er ed and thatJ udge Funderbur k di d notabus e hi s dis cret i on i n i m pos i ng s ent ence , C al l i ns w as ent i t l ed t o an

### Th e majoritystated th at “[i]n ord er to sho w detrimental relian ce, th e defen dant must 4 

### show s ome‘addi ti onalser vit ude t o thegover

nme nt. ’ Call

ins , 2007 Mi ss . App. LEXIS 243, *10, ¶ 11 (quoting Ch ristie v. Sta te , 91 5 S o. 2 d 1 07 3, 1 07 5 (M iss. Ct. App . 20 05 )). 5 evi dent i ary hear i ng on t he i s s ue of w hetherhe detr i m ental l y re l i ed on the j oi ntpl ea
a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n h im se lf a n d th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo u n d th a t,
e v e n th o u g h C a lli n s’s m o tio n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n r e lie f d id n o t su b sta n tially c o m p ly w ith M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 99- 39- 9 ( R ev. 2007) , s uf f i ci ente vi dence e xi s t ed i n the
r ecor d t o w arr anta f

f or di ng Cal l i ns an evi dent i ary hear i ng. I d. at**9-10, ¶10. Speci f i cal l y,
r el yi ng on thi s C ourt ’ s deci s i ons i n Mo o d y v. S ta te , 716 So. 2d 592 ( M i s s . 1998) , and B o y in g to n v. S ta te , 389 So. 2d 485 ( M i s s . 1980) , the C ou rtof A ppeal s hel d thatan
ev iden ti ary he aring w as n ec essa ry to d eterm ine w h ethe r C all ins i n fact sati sfi ed h is
o b lig a tio n to fo rf

e it th e p ro p e rt y p u rs u a n t t o th e p le a a g re e m e n t. I d. at**10- 11, ¶11. T he C our tof A ppeal s r eas oned thati f C al l i ns for f

ei t ed hi s prope r ty, t hen he had r el i ed upon the pl ea agr eementt o hi s di s advant age, s i nce he had been l ed t o be l i eve that the sent enci ng
r ecomm endat i on w oul d be ac cept ed. I d. at**10-13, ¶¶ 11- 13. A ddi t i onal l y, the C our tof 4 A ppeal s hel d that t he t ri al courthad know l edge of the pl ea a gr eementand al l ow ed a cont i nuance i n or dert o gi ve C al l i ns addi t i onal t i m e t o com plet e the f or f ei tur e, t hus p a rt ic ip a tin g in th e p le a a g re e m e n t. I d. A ccor di ngl y, the C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed the tr i al
c o u rt ju d g m e n t d e n y in g p o st-c o n v ictio n r e lief, a n d re m a n d e d th e c a se to th e trial c o u rt, sta tin g th a t “if th e trial c o u rt d e ter m in e s th a t C a lli n s h a s s u b sta n tially c o m p lie d w ith h is obl i gat i ons un derthe pl ea a gr eementt o hi s detr i m ent , then, pur s uantt o Moody and

### 6

B oyington , th e tr ia l c o u rt is d u ty b o u n d to s e n te n c e h im c o n s is te n t w ith h is p le a b a rg a in .” I d. ¶6. H ow ever , i n her dis sent , Jud ge C arl t on foun d t hat C al l i ns w as no tent i t l ed t o an
e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g , s ta tin g , in tera lia : I di s agr ee w i th the maj or i ty' s det erm i nat i on thatC al l i ns i s ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i ary hear i ng on the i s s ue of w hetherhe detr i m ent al l y r el i ed upon t he p le a a g re e m e n t b y v ir tu e o f h is c o o p e ra tio n w ith th e fo rf e itu re p ro c e e d in g s . A trial ju d g e is n o t bo u n d to a c c e p t th e se n ten c in g rec o m m e n d a tio n o f th e S tate w h ere h e d o es n o t inv o lve h im self in th e p lea b arg ainin g p roc ess. M o reo v er, C al l i ns ' s cl ai m w as pr oper l y di s m i s s ed w i thouta hea r i ng as i tw as uns uppor t ed by the af f i davi t s of other s a nd di r ect l y c ontr adi ct ed by hi s s w orn t es t i m ony at the pl ea he ar i ng. Callins , 2 0 0 7 M is s . A p p . L E X IS 2 4 3 , * 2 1 , ¶ 2 2 (C a rl to n , J ., d is s e n tin g ). ¶7. A f

t eri t s mot i on f

orr ehea r i ng w as denied by t he C ou rtof A pp eal s, t he S t at e of M i s s i s s i ppi f

i l ed w i th the C our ta pet i t i on forw r i tof c ert i or ar i , w hi ch w e gr ant ed. W e thus fo c u s o u r d is c u s s io n o n th e c ru c ia l is s u e p re s e n te d o n w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri
. DI S CU S S I ON W HET HER C AL LI NS W AS EN TI TL ED TO AN EV I DE NT I ARY H EA RI NG O N H I S M O TI O N FO R PO ST- CO NV I CT I O N R ELI EF. ¶8. "W hen r evi ew i ng a l ow ercourt ' s deci s i on t o deny a pet i t i on f orpos tconvi ct i on r el i ef th is C o u rt w ill n o t d istu rb th e trial c o u rt' s fa c tu a l fin d in g s u n les s th e y a re fo u n d to b e c lea rly
e rro n e o u s. H o w e v e r, w h e re q u e stio n s o f la w a re ra ise d th e a p p lica b le s tan d a rd o f re v iew is de n ov o. " L a m b e rt v . S ta te , 941 So. 2d 804, 807 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng B ro w n v. S ta te , 731 S o . 2 d 5 9 5 , 5 9 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ); s ee al s o B ank of

Mis s . v. S. Mem 'l

P ark, I nc. , 677 So. 2d 186, 1 9 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 )).

### 7

¶9. R eturni ng t o the r el evant f act s of t oday’ s cas e conce rni ng the pr ocee di ngs bef or e the tr i al court , a car ef

ul re vi ew of the t r ans cr i ptof the gui l ty pl ea he ar i ng r evea l s thaton J ul y 26, 2004, Ju dg e A yc oc k c on du c t e d a n e xt e ns i ve e xa mi na t i on of Cal l i ns t o s a t i s f

y h e r s e l f t ha t C al l i ns under st oo d hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , as w el l as thos e cons t i tut i onal r i ght s he w as g iv in g u p w ith h is g u ilty p lea
. In ea c h ins tan c e , C a lli n s s tate d th a t h e u n d e rsto o d h is rig h ts and thathe w as gi vi ng up hi s ri ght s by pl eadi ng gui l ty. I n open court , C al l i ns w as i nf or m ed
o f th e m in im u m a n d m a x im u m p e n a lti e s fo r th e m e th a m p h e tam in e p o ss e ss io n c h a rg e to
w h ic h h e w a s p le a d in g g u ilty , th a t b e in g a m in im u m s e n te n c e o f s ix y e a rs im p ri s o n m e n t, a
m axi m um s ent ence of

t w enty- f ouryear s i m pr i s onm ent , and a maxi m um fi ne of $500, 000. J udge A ycock then i nqui r ed: Q
. M r . Cal l i ns , d o yo u un de r s t a nd a nd r e pr e s e ntt o the Courtthatyou under s t and the mi ni m um m andatory s ent ence as w el l as the maxi m um s ent ence and f

i ne thatthi s C our tcoul d i m pos e? A
. Y es. J udge A ycock then l earned thatC al l i ns had enga ged i n a pl ea a gr eementw i th the St at e: T H E C O U R T : D oes the St at e have a r ecomm endat i on i n hi s cas e? [A S S IS T A N T D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y ] : W e d o , Y o u r H o n o r. W e a re req u esti n g that sen tenc ing b e d efe rred
. A s p art of the p lea a g ree m en t, there are ce rt ain item s w h ich a re be ing forfeit ed , an d th ere are ind ividu als n o t i n co u rt to d a y w h o h a v e ex p re ss e d an inte re st in th e item s s e ize d ; an d , the re fo re , itis nece s s ary t o getthei rs i gnatur e on the f or f ei ture i t ems. B utthe rec o m m en d ati o n w il l be, Y o u r H o n o r, the d efe n d an t be se n tenc ed to ten y ea rs w i th the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons , t hathe be gi ven cr edi tforthe t i m e he ha s al r eady s erved w i th the bal ance s us pended and pl ace d on thr ee year s pos t -r el eas e s upervi s i on, f or f ei tthos e i t ems s ei zed, and i ti s a s um of cas h a nd a v e hi c l e , YourHonor , s e i z e d on the d a y of a rr e s t . $ 10 0 t o the M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e Lab, $100 t o the M i s s i s s i ppi Cri m e V i ct i m s C om pens at i on

### As p art of th e plea ag reement, C allins ag reed to forfeit th e pro pertyseized. It is 5 

### appare nt f rom the re cord that t

he property ha d not a ct

ual ly be en f

orf ei te d at thetimeof the senten cing he ar in g due to the co mpetin g interests of o ther in div idu als wh o w ere also claiming an interest in th e p ro p ertyto be fo rfeited. H ow ever, th is fact is of n o mo ment in the d ispo sitionof to day ’s case. 8 Fund and courtc os t s . W e do notr eques ta f i ne, Y ourH onor , due t o the val ue of the i t ems s ei zed. Judg e A yco ck ag ai n q uest i on ed C al l i ns: Q
. D o you under s t and thateven though the St at e i s maki ng a r ecomm endat i on th a t th is C o u rt is n o t b o u n d to a c c e p t th e S tate ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n a n d c o u ld i m pos e the maxi m um s ent ence of 24 year s , the m axi m um f i ne of a hal f m i l l i on dol l ar s and/ orboth? A
. Y es. Q
. Y ou have he ar d i tannounce d thats ent enci ng i s goi ng t o be def err ed; i s that c o rre c t? A
. Y es. Q
. M r. C all ins, d o yo u un d erstan d that that w as g o ing to req u ir e y o u to rep o rt back he r e nextw eek f

ors ent enci ng? A
. Y es.

. . . . Q
. M r . C al l i ns, you’r e goi ng t o be bac k bef or e the C our tnextw eek a s announce d as a condit i on to yourpl ea he r e t oday. I ’ m as ki ng you do you under s t and thatanotherj udge w i l l be her e nextw eek? A
. Y es, si r (si c). Q
. D o you agr ee thatanotherjudge otherthan mysel f – I ’ ve ac cept ed your pl ea. D o you agr ee thatanotherj udge w i l l do the s ent enci ng nextw eek? A
. Y e s . ¶1 0. O n A ugus t5, 2004, t he A l cor n C ount y C i r cui tCour t , J ud ge Pa ul Fun de rbu r k, p residing , co n d u cted C all ins’s sen tenc ing h ea ri n g . Ju d g e F u n d erb u rk re jected the S tat e’s
r ecomm endat i on, s t at i ng: 5 T H E C O U R T : I not e i n the courtf i l e thathe s i gned an a f

f i davi tof i ndi gence o n S ep tem b er 1 8 , 2 0 0 3 , stat ing that h e w as u n em p loy ed , ea rne d z e ro d o ll ars perw eek, t hathe di dn’ tow n an aut om obi l e, he di dn’ tow n any pr operty, that

### When Ca ll ins was bef oreJudgeAycoc k to e nte r hi s gui lt y plea, Judge Aycoc k 6 

### requ ested C allins to reveal “all o f yo ur p rior felo nyhisto ry .” A ft erc on ferring withhis couns el , Ca ll ins inf

orm ed Judge Ayc ock of a 1990 conspira cy c onvic ti on in Ma dis on County, Tenne ss ee , f

or whi ch hehad servedtime. When Judge Ayc ock inquired i f ther e were “[a]nyoth er felon ies,” Callin s respo nd ed, “N o.” 9 he had z er o dol l ar s i n chec ki ng, zer o dol l ar s i n s avi ngs . H i s a s s et s w er e ze r o. A nd bas ed on thataf

f i davi t , w hi ch appar ent l y w as per j ur ed, he w as appoi nt ed couns el , a publ i c def

ender
. I have al s o re vi ew ed the pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on o n M r. C a llin s , w h ic h s h o w s th a t h e h a s s ix p ri o r f e lo n y c o n v ic tio n s .[ ] 6 T aki ng hi s pr evi ous r ecor d i nt o cons i der at i on a nd the natur e of the char ge, the m i nim um and m axim um pen al t i es, i ti s the sentence of the C ou rt , M r. C al l i ns, thatyou serve a t erm of

20 year s i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m ent of C orr ect i ons . T w el ve of thos e yea r s s hal l be s us pended, l eavi ng you ei ght t o s e r ve . Y ou a r e o r de r e d t o pa y a tw o tho us a nd d ol l a rf i ne a nd a l l cos tof court . U pon yourr el eas e you w i l l be on f i ve yea r s pos t - r el eas e s upervi s i on. Y ou w i l l be i n cus t ody of the s her i f

f t o aw ai ttr ans por t at i on. ¶1 1
. C o n sist en t w ith the sen tenc e im p o sed u p o n C all ins in o p en co u rt , Ju d g e F u n d erb u rk ent er ed an or ders ent enci ng C al l i ns t o tw enty year s i n the cus t ody of the M i s si s s i ppi D epart m ent of

C orr ect i on s, w i th tw el ve y ears suspend ed, and fi ve y ears of po st- release
s upervi s i on. A ddi t i onal l y, C al l i ns w as orde r ed t o pay $281 i n courtcos t s and a $2, 000 f i ne. O n A u g u s t 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 , C a llin s , fi le d , pro se , a M ot i on t o W i thdr aw al (s i c) G ui l ty Pl ea pur s uant to M issi ssipp i U n if

o rm R u le of C ir cu itan d C o u n ty C o u rtP rac ti ce 8
. 0 4 (A ). ¶12. O n O ct ober 6, 2004, C al l i ns , thr ough couns el , f i l ed a M ot i on t o C l ar i f

y Sent enci ng O rder , C on du ctD ue P rocess H eari ng , or i n the A l t ernat i ve, t o G rantR el i ef U nd er Post C onvi ct i on R el i ef

A ct , w her ei n C al l i ns s t at ed thathe, hi s couns el , and the A s s i s t antD i s tr i ct A t t orney al l bel i eved thatthe s ent ence r ecomm endat i on w oul d be f ol l ow ed by the s ent enci ng j udge. H ow ever , C al l i ns att ache d no af f i davi t s t o hi s m ot i on. Cal l i ns r eques t ed thatthe tr i al

### 10

courtgi ve hi m a f

ul l hear i ng conce rni ng hi s s ent ence and cl ar i f y i t s or derconce rni ng that
s ent ence . O n Sept ember30, 2005, J udge Funderbur k ent er ed an or derent i t l ed “O r der D enyi ng D ef

endant ’ s M ot i on t o C l ar i f y Sent enci ng O r der , C onductD ue Pr oces s H ear i ng,
o r i n th e A lte rn a tiv e , T o G ra n t R e lie f U n d e r P o s t C o n v ic tio n R e lie f A c t.” ¶13. I n hi s det ai l ed, thr ee- page or der , J udge Funderbur k, w i thouta hea r i ng, f ound f r om the
re c o rd (in c lu d in g th e tra n sc rip t o f th e g u ilty p lea h e a rin g b e fo re Ju d g e A y c o c k ), th a t h is sent encing o rderw as unam biguou s and r equi r ed n o clar i fi cat i on . Judg e F un derburk li kew i se fo u n d , in tera lia , thatC al l i ns acknow l edged the m i ni m um a nd maxi m um pe nal t i es f ort he
cr i m e t o w hi ch he pl eade d gui l ty; thatC al l i ns acknow l edged t hathe under s t ood t he
se n ten c in g ju d g e w a s n o t b o u n d b y th e s e n ten c in g re c o m m e n d a tio n w h ich h a d b e e n re a d in
o p e n c o u rt b e fo re Ju d g e A y c o c k ; an d th a t C a lli n s h a d o n e y e a r o f c o lleg e a n d c e rta in ly
u n d erstoo d h is r igh ts an d tho se righ ts he w as g iving u p b y h is gu il ty p lea. Jud g e F u n d erb u rk al s o s t at ed thata pr e- s ent ence i nves t i gat i on re por tpre par ed by an of f i cerw i th the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof

C orr ect i ons s how ed thatC al l i ns had s i x pr i orf el ony co nv i ct i ons , al though C a lli n s h a d sw o rn u n d e r o a th d u rin g h is p lea co llo q u y w ith Ju d g e A y c o c k tha t h e h a d o n ly one pr i orfe l ony convi ct i on. J udge Funderbur k furtherst at ed i n hi s or derthatC al l i ns m ade yeta notherpe r

j ur ed s t at ementw hen he acknow l edged bef or e hi m atthe t i m e of

s ent enci ng thathe had bee n “gai nf

ul l y em pl oyed i n the us ed ca rbus i nes s , ” and w hen he a cknow l edged before Judge A yco ck thathe had been em ployed a tM i l l enn i um C ars , Inc. , forseven y ears . O n the otherhand, i n or dert o s ecur e a publ i c def enderatthe t i m e of

arr ai gnm ent , C al l i ns
s i gned a s w orn af

f i davi tof indi gen ce st at i ng thathe w as unempl oyed w i th no i ncome and

### 11

had no r eal or per s onal prope r ty. Fi nal l y, i n hi s orde rdenyi ng post - convi ct i on r el i ef , J udge Funderbur k s t at ed: I n arr i vi ng ata s entence , the C our tt ook i nt o cons i der at i on the natur e of the char ge aga i ns tC al l i ns , the mi ni m um and ma xim um s ent ence s pr ovi ded by s t atut e f orthe cr i m e t o w hi ch he pled gui l ty and hi s pr evi ous f el ony hi s t ory. T he tr i al j udge i s “sol el y re s pons i bl e f ordet erm i ni ng t he appr opr i at e s ent ence . T he tr i al j udge does nothave t o acce ptany s ent ence r ecomm endat i on m ade du ri ng plea nego t i at i on s. ” R ob i nson v. S t at e, 83 6 S o. 2d 74 7, 75 1 (M i ss. 2 0 0 [2] ). A lleg ati o n s b y a m o v an t i n p o st- co n v ict ion p lead ing s tha t are co m p let ely contr adi ct ed by hi s s w orn t est i m ony i n the r ecor d, as i n thi s cas e, do not req u ir e a h ea ri n g . D aw k ins v
. S tat e, 2 0 0 5 W L 1 3 8 4 3 3 5 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ), ci t i ng T aylorv. S t at e, 68 2 S o. 2d 35 9, 36 4 (M i ss. 1 99 6). T heref ore, C al l i ns’ m ot i on s hal l be, and t he s ame i s her eby, deni ed and di s m i s s ed f orthi s r eas on. Fur therm or e, C al l i ns’ m ot i on does nots ubs t ant i al l y compl y w i th the re q u ire m e n ts o f M iss . C o d e , 1 9 7 2 , A n n ., S e c tio n 9 9 -3 9 -9 , an d th e sa m e is her eby, deni ed and di s m i s s ed f orthi s r eas on al s o. ¶ 1 4
. O n this rec o rd , th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls , in re lia n c e o n th is C o u rt ’s d e c isio n s in B oyington and Moody , de term ined th at C all ins w as e n ti tl ed to an ev iden ti ary h ea ri n g b efo re the tr i al j udge t o de t erm i ne ( 1) i f Cal l i ns ha d s at i s f

i ed hi s pa r tof

the pl ea a gr eementby doi ng al l he coul d do t o f

or f ei tcert ai n per s onal p r operty and, i f s o, ( 2) w hetherC al l i ns had detr i m ent al l y r el i ed on the pr ovi s i ons of the j oi ntpl ea agreem ent be tw een hi m s el f and the S tate , thu s re q u irin g th e trial c o u rt to se n ten c e C a lli n s p u rsu a n t to th e p lea a g re e m e n t. Ca llin s v . S ta te , 2007 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 243, **10- 13, ¶¶11- 13. ¶15. I n herdi s s ent , J udge C ar l t on thor oughl y di s cus s ed and di s t i ngui s hed both B oyington and Moody , f

i ndi ng i ns t ead thatthe ca s e s ub j udi ce w as mor e aki n t o Ma rtin v. S ta te , 635

### Howeve r, we s tay foc use d on the fa ct that Boyington ultimate ly di d not pl ea d guilty, 7 

### but inst ea d put hi s c as e be for e a jur y, whi ch f

ound him guilty. 12 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 4 ). Callins , 2007 M i s s . A pp. LE X I S 243, **21- 39, ¶¶22- 44 ( C ar l t on, J. , dis sent i ng ). W e agree w i th Jud ge C arl t on ’s analysi s. ¶1 6. I n B oyington , t he de f e nd a ntwas i nd i c t e d f

orthe c r i me o f

s el l i ng l es s t han one k ilo g ra m o f m a ri h u a n a a n d la te r a p p re h e n d e d in th e s ta te o f P e n n s y lv a n ia
. B oyington , 389 So. 2d at487. B oyi ngt on w ai ved extr adi t i on a nd e n r out e bac k t o M i s s i s s i ppi , he i nf or m ed
a n a g e n t w ith th e M iss iss ip p i B u re a u o f N a rc o tics (M B N ) th a t h e w a n ted to try to “ h e lp hi m s el f
. ” A s a r es ul t , i n excha nge f ora r ecomm endat i on of pr obat i on, B oyi ngt on w or ked
u n d e rc o v e r w ith th e M B N a n d d e v e lo p e d a b o u t te n d ru g c a s e s . I d. at487- 88. W i th both the d istri ct att o rne y an d th e c ir cu itjud g e h av ing k n o w ledg e o f B o y ing ton ’s un d erc o v er w o rk
w ith the M B N , a n d at th e req u e st o f th e M B N ag e n t, th e d istric t atto rn e y in fo rm e d th e c irc u it j udge, pr i ort o the tr i al da t e, of the pr opos ed pl ea agr eement , w hi ch i ncl ud ed a sen t ence
r ecomm endat i on of

pr obat i on. H ow ever , the ci r cui tj udge i nf or m ed the di s tr i ctatt orney that thi s re comm endat i on w as notagr eea bl e w i th hi m , w her eupon the di s tr i ctatt orney made an al t ernat i ve pr opos al t o the ci r cui tj udge thath e ( the di s tr i ctatt orney) w oul d r ecomm end a tw o- yearpe ni t ent i ary s ent ence i n r eturn f orthe def

endant ’ s gui l ty pl ea. Thi s pr opos al w as
a g re e a b le to th e c ir c u it ju d g e . I d. at488. H ow ever , B oyi ngt on decl i ned the al t ernat i ve pr opos ed pl ea a gr eement , and t he ca s e ul t i m at el y w entt o tr i al , r es ul t i ng i n a j ury ver di ctof gui l ty. T he tr i al j udge se nt ence d B oyi ngt on t o a t erm of ei ghtyear s i n the s t at e peni t ent i ary. I d . a t 4 8 8 -9 0 . T h is C o u rt a c k n o w le d g e d , in tera lia , thatpl ea ba r gai ni ng w as an es s ent i al 7

### The m aj ori ty’ s opinion ge nerat ed a dis sent f rom Justi ceBroom , j oine d by Jus ti ce 8 

### Walk er, wh erein Ju stice Bro om stated , inter a lia , “ I am not wi ll ing t

hat we s hould f

or the firs t tim e e ver , a

bse nt any st at

utor y authori ty, wher e no r eve rs ibl e e rror i s f ound, va catea tria l ju d g e’ s o rd er andtell him h e must p lace onpro batio n o ne fo un d g uiltybya jury .” Boyi ngton , 389 So. 2d at

493. In making t

his st at em ent , Justic e Broom e mpha si ze d that Boyingt on had initiate d theple a barga ining proc es s; the rew as a n alte rnative re comme ndation f

or e it her a l ight se ntence or probati on; no onere nege d on a promi se ; Bo ying t onr e

j e c t e d theprof

f e r e d two - ye ar

s e nt e nc e ; and

e ve n a f t e r aj ur y tri a land

ve r di ct of g uilty , the trial ju dg e senten ced B oy ing tonto a pen itentiaryterm wh ich w as less thanhalf the max imum sentence p rov idedbystatute. Id. 13 partof the cr i m i nal j ust i ce s ys t em and t hatthe i m pos i t i on of a s ent ence upon a cr i m i nal def endanti s w i thi n the s ound di s cr et i on of t he t ri al j udge, and s uch s ent ence w i l l notbe
re v e rs e d o r o th e rw is e d is tu rb e d if th e s e n te n c e is w ith in th e s ta tu to ry lim its
. I d. at491 (ci t at i on s om i t t ed). N otw i thst and i ng this C ou rt ’s ackno w l edg m ent of these ba si c precepts , and w i thoutany ci t at i on t o r el evantauthor i ty, thi s C our tconcl uded: H ow ever , underthe pec ul i arf act s of thi s cas e, w her e w e do notf i nd err or w hi ch r equi r es r ever s al f ora new tr i al , butw her e the appe l l ant , w i th the know l edge of

the tr i al c our t , w or ked f orthe M i s s i s s i ppi B ur eau of N ar cot i cs as an undercoveri nf

or m ant , and w as pr om i s ed by the B ur eau a nd di s tr i ct att orney thatthey w oul d r ecomm end pr obat i on, w hi ch l ed appel l antt o bel i eve he w oul d b e pl a c e d o n p r ob a t i on , w e ho l d j us t i c e r e qu i r e s tha tthe j ud gment of the l ow ercourts ent enci ng appel l antt o ei ght( 8) year s i n the M i s s i s s i ppi S tate P e n iten tiary b e v a c a ted a n d th a t th e c a se b e re m a n d e d to th e lo w e r c o u rt, w i th i ns truct i ons thatappel l antbe pl ace d on pr obat i on undersuch t erm s and c o n d itio n s a s th e lo w e r c o u rt m a y p re s c ri b e .[ ] 8 I d. ¶17. A s J u d g e C a rl to n p o in te d o u t in h e r d is s e n t, B oyington i s di s t i ngui s habl e f or s ever al
r eas ons , i ncl udi ng the f

actt hat , cont r ary t o t he conduc tof the tr i al j udge i n B oyington , J udge A ycock a nd J udge Funderbur k, i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , i n no w ay i nvol ved themsel ves i n t he

### The Cour t of Appea ls opine d that s inc e Judge Ayc ock wa s aware of the ple a 9 

### agreement at the p lea hearin g an d continu ed the case for a subsequent sentencin g h earing in orde r t o all ow Call ins additiona l timeto for fe it thesubj ec t property c onsi st ent with theple a agr ee me nt, “the tri alcourt a ls o involved i ts el f in the [ple a barga ining] proc es s. ” Call ins , 20 07 Miss. App . LE XIS 24 3, * *1 2-1 3, ¶ 

### 13 . Li k e Jud ge C arlton , we d isagree th at merely continu ing th e senten cing hearin g until a future d ate someh owcausedJud ge Ayco ck to beco me a part o f the p lea bargain ing process to justifythe “d etrimental relian ce” argument. In f ac t, a c ontinuanc e of

these nte ncing hearing al lowe d these nte ncing judgeto rec ei ve a pre -s ent enc e inves ti gation report on whic h the se nte ncing j udge heavily re li ed in ar ri ving at his sentence. 14 p le a b a rg a in in g p ro c e s s b e tw e e n th e S ta te a n d C a llin s a n d h is a tto rn e y . Callins , 20 07 M i ss. A pp. L E X I S 243, *28, ¶31 ( C ar l t on , J. , di s s ent i ng)
. I n f act , atthe pl ea he ar i ng, J udge A y co ck u n eq u ivo ca ll y info rm ed C all ins tha t th e c o u rtw as n o t bo u n d b y the S tat e’s
r ecomm endat i on of

a s ent ence t o t i m e s erved, and thatthe courtcoul d i ns t ead i m pos e the
m axi m um tw enty- f

our - years ent ence . C al l i ns cl ear l y s t at ed thathe under s t ood w hatJ udge Ay c o c k wa s s a y i n g t o h i m. 9 ¶18. T he C our tof A pp eal s al so cit ed t his C ou rt ’ s deci s i on i n Moody to u n d e rg ird its deci s i on i n the ca s e sub j udi ce . I n Moody , the def endantw as char ged i n a mul t i
- count i ndi ctm enton tw o cou nts o f capi t al m ur derand one c ountof s i m pl e murde r , m eani ng that i f he w entt o t r i al and w as f ound gui l ty of

capi t al m ur der , he s t oo d t he pos s i bi l i ty of bei ng
s e n te n c e d to d e a th b y th e s e n te n c in g ju ry . Moody , 716 So. 2d at593. I n orde rt o avoi d t he d e a th p e n a lty , M o o d y e n ter e d in to a M e m o ra n d u m o f U n d e rsta n d in g (M O U ) w h e re b y , in
r eturn forhi s gui l ty pl eas and hi s cooper at i on t o f ul l y r evea l hi s know l edge of the cr i m es f

or
w h ich h e w a s in d icte d a s w e ll as a n u n so lv e d , u n re late d m u rd e r an d o th e r cr im e s, the S tate
w oul d r ecom m end t o the tr i al j udge thatM oody r ece i ve tw o l i f e s ent ence s t o run

### 15

c o n s e c u tiv e ly
. I

d. A lso , p u rsu a n t to th e M O U , M o o d y a g re e d to tes tify tru th fu lly a g a in st h is
co- def endant s att hei rtr i al s . M oody’ s s ubs equentpol ygr aph exa m i nat i ons conce rni ng the f act s and ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the m urder s s ugges t ed thatM oody w as i ndeed be i ng tru th fu l w ith la w e n fo rc e m e n t o ff ic ia ls
. I d. N otw i ths t andi ng thi s M O U and M oody’ s act i ons tak e n in re lian c e u p o n it, th e tria l ju d g e re fu se d a t th e p lea h e a rin g to a c c e p t M o o d y ’s g u ilty p le a s , re a s o n in g , inter a lia , thatthe M O U had bee n ent er ed i nt o by a di s tr i ctatt orney w ho
w as no l ongerservi ng; t hatt he di s tr i ctat t orney ent er ed i nt o the M O U w i thoutcons ul t i ng t he trial ju d g e ; th a t th e d istric t atto rn e y sh o u ld h a v e “ g o tten a u th o rity ” fro m th e trial ju d g e to ent eri nt o the M O U ; thathe “w oul d hope t hat [ t he di s tr i ctatt orney] w oul d have c ons ul t ed the al l eged vi ct i m ’ s f

ami l y m ember s , ” and thatthe “he i nous nes s ” of the cr i m es di ct at ed that M o o d y s h o u ld n o t b e a b le to e s c a p e th e d e a th p e n a lty
. I d. ¶19. A f

t ergr ant i ng M oody ’s p et i t i on for i nte r l ocut ory appea l , thi s C our taddr es s ed the
s i ngl e i s s ue of

w hethert he M O U i ncorpor at i ng the pl ea a gr eementbetw een M oody and the St at e s houl d be enf

or ced. M oody a s s ert ed thatthe M O U s houl d be e nf or ced beca us e he w as im p ro p e rly in d u c e d to p lea d g u ilty b y th e S tate ’s p ro m ise th a t h e w o u ld n o t b e su b jec ted to the dea th penal ty. Fur ther, h e sai d he detr i m ent al l y r el i ed on the M O U by ( 1) pr ovi di ng i nf or m at i on on hi s i nvol vementand t he i nvol vementof other s i n t he m ur der s , (2) di s cl os i ng f ul l y al l i nf

or m at i on w i thi n hi s know l edge conc erni ng t he murde r s f orw hi ch he w as i ndi ct ed and anothers epar at e m ur der , ( 3) s ubm i t t i ng t o a nd pa s s i ng pol ygr aph exam i nat i ons
c o n c e rn in g h is s ta te m e n ts , a n d (4 ) a g re e in g to te s tif y a g a in s t h is c o -d e fe n d a n ts . I d. at593- 9 4 . T h is C o u rt re v e rs e d a n d re m a n d e d fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s , s ta tin g , in tera lia :

### 16

O ne , the tr i a l c ou r tc l e a r l y a bu s e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n f l a t l y r e f us i ng t o a cce pt M oody’ s pl eas of

gui l tbase d sol el y upon the r eas ons i ndi cat ed i n the r ecor d. T w o , M o o d y d id ind ee d d etri m en tal ly rely o n the [M O U ] b y su b stan tially p e rf o rm in g m a n y o f t h e te rm s o f t h e [M O U ] before th e tria l co u rt re fu se d to a c c e p t th e g u ilty p le a s a n d e n fo rc e th e [M O U ]. I d . at594 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. I n f i ndi ng that , on r emand, t he t r i al courtm us tenf or ce the M O U , in to to , w e s t at ed: H o w e v e r th is C o u rt h a s n e v e r h e ld th a t a tria l co u rt m a y d e c lin e to a c c e p t a pr of f er ed gui l ty pl ea t o capi t al m ur ders i m pl y beca us e the co urtdoes not w i sh t o s ee the def

endants ent ence d t o s om ethi ng l es s than dea th i n excha ng e f or v alua b le info rm ati o n a b o u t th e ch arg ed o ffen ses an d o ther c ri m es. M o reo v er, no author i ty exi s t s t o s uppor tthe t ri al court ' s otherr eas ons f orr ej ect i ng M oody' s gui l ty pl eas , s uch as hi s vague conce rn t hatt he vi ct i m s ' fa m i l i es had notbe e n c on s ul t e d a nd hi s e rr on e ou s a s s e r t i on tha tthe di s tr i c ta t t or ney exce eded i t s [ s i c] di s cr et i on i n ent er i ng the [ M O U ] w i t h M oo dy. T o the c o n tr a r y , th e s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o ri n th i s c a s e , s t a t e d i n r e s p o n s e t o M o o d y 's p eti ti o n for i n terl o cu tory ap p ea l th at his fi le refl ec ted th at th e fa m il y m em b ers w ere cons ul t ed pr i or t o the exe cut i on of the [ M O U ]
. I n addi t i on, the s peci al pr os ecut ornot ed thatthe tr i al courtdi d notha ve the author i ty t o ent eri nt o pl ea negot i at i ons and thatthe pr os ecut i ng o f f i ce, notthe tr i al court , deci des w hether t o seek the death pen al ty ev en in the m ostheinous cap i t al m urder cases
. I d . at 59 4 -95 (em p h asis in o ri g inal). ¶20. L i kew i s e, as not ed by thi s C our t , s i nce M oo dy w as i nd i ct ed f or capi t al m ur der , t he tr i al courtha d no s ent enci ng opt i ons unde rM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 99- 19- 101,
s i nce onl y a j ury c oul d make the det erm i nat i on thatM oody s houl d s uf f erthe dea th penal ty. If th e s en tenc ing jury w as u n ab le un an im o u sly to a g ree o n a se n tenc e o f eith er d ea th, l if e
w i thoutpar ol e, orl i f

e, the tr i al j udge w oul d be m andat ed by st atut e t o s ent ence the def endant to l if e im p ri s o n m e n t. I

d. a t5 95
. A l s o, we a gr e e d w i th the St a t e ’ s a s s e r t i on tha ti twas a n
a p p ro p ria te f

u n c tio n o f th e p ro se c u tio n , an d n o t o f th e c o u rt, t o d e c id e w h e th e r th e d e a th

### 17

penal ty w oul d be s oughti n a c api t al m ur dercas e. I d . T hi s C our tl i kew i s e r el i ed on E dw ar ds
v. S ta te , 465 S o. 2 d 10 85 (M i s s . 1985) , and B oyington to fin d th a t M o o d y h a d , in f a c t, d e tr im e n ta lly re lie d o n th e M O U , th u s re q u ir in g its e n fo rc e m e n t. I d. ¶ 2 1
. A g a in , w e ag re e w ith Ju d g e C a rlto n th a t Moody i s di s t i ngui s habl e f r om the ca s e s ub j udi ce . Callins , 2 0 0 7 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 2 4 3 , * 2 3 , ¶2 4 (C arlt o n , J. , dissen ti n g ). In tod ay ’s
c a se , Ju d g e F u n d e rb u rk , a s th e s e n ten c in g ju d g e , fo c u se d o n C a lli n s’s c rim in a l h isto ry (six pr i orf el ony convi ct i ons ) a nd C al l i ns ’ s untruthf ul nes s w i th the courtconce rni ng hi s f i nanci al abi l i ty t o hi r e a l aw yerand hi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory (s t at i ng underoat h i n open cour tt hathe had onl y one pr i orf

el ony convi ct i on)
. I n arr i vi ng athi s s ent ence , J udge Funderbur k addr es s ed i n open courthi s r el i ance on the pr obat i on off i cer ’ s pr e- s ent ence r eportand the f actt hat C al l i ns had l i ed underoath both t o hi m and t o J udge A ycock a bouthi s employm ents t atus and thathe had l i ed t o Judge A ycock w hen he st at ed t o herunderoath thathe had onl y one pr i orf el ony convi ct i on. C al l i ns i nf or m ed J udge A ycock atthe pl ea he ar i ng thathe knew t he
co u rtw as n o t bo u n d b y an y se n tenc ing rec o m m en d ati o n , a n d in th e e n d , Ju d g e F u n d erb u rk im p o se d a se n ten c e o f e ig h t y e a rs to se rv e b y w a y o f im p riso n m e n t, w h ich se n ten c e w a s o n ly
o n e -t h ir d o f t h e m a x im u m s ta tu to ry s e n te n c e w h ic h c o u ld h a v e b e e n im p o s e d
. See M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -29 -13 9 (c)(1)(D ) ( R ev . 20 0 5 ). T h u s Ju d g e F u n d erb u rk’s a cti o n s are a fa r cry f r om the ac t i ons of

the tr i al j udge i n Moody
. ¶ 2 2
. F in a lly , as Ju d g e C a rlto n n o ted in h e r d iss e n t, th e fa c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s p e c u liar to the ca s e s ub j udi ce ar e m or e aki n t o thos e s etouti n Ma rtin v. S ta te , 63 5 S o. 2d 13 52 (M i ss. 1 9 9 4 ). See Callins , 20 0 7 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 2 4 3 , * * 2 9 -31 , ¶¶ 3 3 -35 (C arlt o n , J. , d issen ti n g ).

### 18

I n Ma rtin , the d efendan t plea d ed g uil ty to the cri m e of ar m ed robb ery on the day his case
w as s etf ortr i al in t he C i r cui tC our tf orthe Second J udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H arr i s on C ount y. D u ri n g th e p le a c o llo q u y , th e tr ia l ju d g e in fo rm e d M a rt in , in tera lia , that: ( 1 ) arm ed rob b ery
carr i ed a mandat ory m i ni m um s t atutor y penal ty of thr ee ye ar s ; ( 2) s i nce the St at e had abandone d i t s ef

f or tt o see k t he m axi m um penal ty of l i f e i m pr i s onm ent , the tr i al j udge had
au tho ri ty to sen tenc e M arti n t o a term o f i m p ri so n m en t dee m ed to b e less tha n M arti n ’s l if e expec t ancy; ( 3) the then- appl i cabl e s t atut e pr ovi ded f orno par ol e el i gi bi l i ty unt i l the defend ant had served atl eas tt en yea r s of a s ent ence of

m or e than t en yea r s ; and ( 4) on a
s ent ence of

t en yea r s orl es s , the def endantw as r equi r ed by s t atut e t o s erve the s ent ence , dayfo r- d a y , w ith o u t t h e p o s s ib ility o f p a ro le
. I d. at1353. U pon the r eques tof the tr i al j udge, t he pr os ecut i on i nf

or m ed the courtt hatthe pl ea a gr eementre ache d am ong t he St at e, M art i n, and M art i n’ s couns el w as that , i n excha nge f orM art i n’ s t es t i m ony agai ns thi s co- def endant s , t he St at e w oul d r ecomm end a s ent ence of f i ve yea r s t o run concurr ent l y w i t h a thr ee- year
s e n te n c e im p o s e d b y th e J a c k s o n C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u rt . I d. O n atl eas tthr ee oc cas i ons , t he tr i al j udge i nf

or m ed M art i n thathe w as notbound by t he s ent ence r ecomm endat i on and that he coul d i m pos e upon M art i n a s ent ence of up t o thi r ty year s, an d M art i n st at ed he under s t ood. T he tr i al courtdef er red sent enci ng i n or dert o r ece i ve a “ f ul l
- bl ow n” pr es ent ence re por t , st at i ng, “I don’tknow w hetherornotI ’ l l f ol l ow the r ecomm endat i on. ” I d. A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , the trial ju d g e o p in e d th a t M a rtin a n d h is tw o c o -d e fe n d a n ts col l ect i vel y had comm i t t ed m or e than one hundr ed j uveni l e/ adul tm i s demeanor/ f el ony

### Norm al ly a def endant has no right

to a direc t a ppea l a ft er

ple ading guilty in thetria l 10 

### court, having ins te ad t o s ee k rel ie f via the Mis si ss ippiUni for

m Post -Convi ction Col late ra l Relief Act, Miss. C od e Ann. § § 9 9-3 9-1 , et se q . ( Rev. 2007). Howeve r, a de fe ndant suc h as Martin may dire ctly a

ppea l f rom thetria l c ourt

af te r a guilty pl ea

when the only is sueon appe alis thele ngth of

these nte nce , and thedef endant i s not

atta cking the guilty ple a i ts el f. Jo hn son v. Sta te , 925 So. 2d 86, 88 n1 ( Mis s. 2006) ( ci tati ons om itte d). 19 cr i m es , and thus s ent ence d eac h def endantt o a t erm of

ei ghtye ar s , thr ee ye ar s m or e than the b a rg a in e d -f

o r s e n te n c e . I

d. at1353- 54. ¶23. O n appea l , M art i n ar gued that the tr i al court w as bound by the pl ea agr eements i nce the pl ea a gr eementi nvol ved notonl y a r ecomm ended s ent ence , butal s o a p rovi s i on t hat M arti n w o u ld testi fy a g ains t his co -de fen d an ts; h o w ev er, this C o u rtaffi rm ed th e tri al j u d g e’s ei ght
- yearsent ence i m pos ed upon M art i n. I d. a t1354. C i t i ng Mo o re v. S ta te , 394 So. 2d 10 1336 ( M i s s . 1981) , w e s t at ed thati f , dur i ng the pl ea col l oquy, the tr i al courthas i nf or m ed the d efe n d an t th at th e c o u rtis no t bo u n d b y a n y s en tenc e re co m m en d ati o n , an d if the re co rd
r ef l ect s thatthe tr i al courti s noti nvol ved i n t he pl ea bar gai ni ng pr oces s and the pr os ecut or
m akes the r ecomm ended s ent ence purs uantt o the pl ea a gr eement , the tr i al courtcomm i t s no
err orby notf

ol l ow i ng the St at e’ s s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i on, s o l on g as t he se nt ence im p o s e d is w ith in th e m a x im u m lim its p re s c ri b e d b y th e a p p lic a b le s ta tu te . Ma rtin , 635 So. 2d at1355. I n Ma rtin , thi s C our tdi s t i ngui s hed both B oyington and S a lterv. S ta te , 387 So. 2 d 8 1 (M is s . 1 9 8 0 ). I

d. at1354- 55. ¶2 4
. W ith the fa cts o f Ma rtin and the ca s e s ub j udi ce i n m i nd, J udge C ar l t on s t at ed i n her d is s e n t, in tera lia , thatC al l i ns w as i nf or m ed of the pl ea agr eementdur i ng the pl ea c ol l oquy and the f actthatthe tr i al courtw as notbound by the St at e’ s r ecomm endat i on; thatC al l i ns

### 20

h a d th e o p p o rtu n ity to in fo rm th e tria l c o u rt o f a n y p e rc e iv e d b e lief th a t th e trial c o u rt w o u ld b e b o u n d b y th e se n ten c e re c o m m e n d a tio n , an d y e t h e n o t o n ly fa iled to a v a il h im se lf o f th is oppor tuni ty, buthe i ns t ead c l ear l y s t at ed thathe unde r s t ood the tr i al courtw as notbound by th e S tate ’s s e n ten c e re c o m m e n d a tio n ; th a t Ma rtin i s cons i s t entw i th the pr ovi s i ons of U R C C C 8. 04( B ) ( 2) and U R C C C 8. 04( B ) ( 4) ; thatthe St at e f ul f i l l ed i t s r es pons i bi l i ty by
m a k in g the ag re e d -u p o n se n ten c e rec o m m e n d a tio n ; an d tha t C a llin s u n d e rsta n d a b ly “pos s es s ed a hope of

l eni ency, ” butthe s ent enci ng j udge, r el yi ng on the pr es ent ence inv esti g ati o n repo rtan d C all ins’s un tru thfu l w ri tt en an d oral st atem en ts to bo th jud g es b efo re
w hom he appe ar ed, di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on i n r ef us i ng t o f

ol l ow the j oi nts ent ence
rec o m m en d ati o n in im p o sing sen tenc e. T h u s, Ju d g e C arlt o n “re ject[ ed ] th e m ajority ’s det erm i nat i on thatthe tr i al courtm ay be bound t o s ent ence C al l i ns i n accordance w i th t he St at e’ s r ecomm endat i on. ” I d. at* *3 0-32, ¶¶34- 36 ( C ar l t on, J
. , di s s ent i ng)
. W e thus f i nd th a t Ma rtin i s app l i cabl e t o t he ca s e s ub j udi ce , as oppos ed t o Boyington and Moody
. In otherw or ds , ourcas es di s cus s i ng detr i m ent al r el i ance ar e notappl i cabl e t o t oday’ s cas e. ¶25. I n sum, Judge Funderbur k di d notcom m i terr orby s um m ar i l y denyi ng and di s m i s s i ng C al l i ns ’ s m ot i on f

orpos t - c on vi c t i on r e l i e f
. M i s s i s s i pp i Code A nnot at ed Sect i on 99- 39- 11( 2) ( R ev. 2007) pr ovi des thatthe t r i al j udge m ay summ ar i l y di s m i s s a m ot i on forpos t - convi ct i on
r el i ef “[ i ] f i tpl ai nl y appea r s f

r om the f ace of the mot i on, any anne xed exhi bi t s a nd the pr i or pr ocee di ngs i n the ca s e thatthe [ pr i s oner ] i s notent i t l ed t o any r el i ef
. ” I ndeed, J udge Fun derburk found thatthe al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n C al l i ns ’ s pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef m ot i on
w er e contr adi ct ed by C al l i ns ’ s s w orn t es t i m ony atthe pl ea he ar i ng bef or e J udge A ycock, as

### 21

r e v e a l e d i n t h e t r a n s c r i p to f t h e p l e a h e a r i n g . T h e r e f o r e , p u r s u a n tt o th e s t a tu t e a n d c a s e l a w, Ju d g e F u n d e rb u rk w a s n o t re q u ire d to c o n d u c t an e v id e n tiary h e a rin g o n C a lli n s’s p o stc o n v ic tio n re lie f m o tio n . T a y lo r v . S ta te , 6 8 2 S o . 2 d 3 5 9 , 3 6 3 -6 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); H ar r is v. S ta te , 5 7 8 S o . 2 d 6 1 7 , 6 2 0 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 ). See a l so K in gv. S ta te , 67 9 S o. 2d 208, 210- 11 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); Sm ith v. S ta te , 6 3 6 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). ¶ 2 6
. H a v in g f

u lly a d d re s s e d th e is s u e b e fo re u s, w e fe e l co m p e lled to a d d re ss c e rta in l anguage cont ai ned i n the C our tof A ppeal s ’ opi ni on i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce . T h at co u rt
s t at ed, i nt eral i a: W hi l e C al l i ns di d r es pond af f i r m at i vel y w hen as ked i f he under s t ood thatthe trial c o u rt w a s n o t b o u n d b y th e S tate ' s re c o m m e n d a tio n , itis o f n o m o m e n t. T he sa me may w e l l be a mi s s t a t e mentof the l a w w he r e de tr i ment a l r e l i ance e x ists a n d a d e fe n d a n t h a s p e rf o rm e d h is p a rt o f th e p lea a g re e m e n t. A dd i t i on al l y, i nh erenti n the que st i on i t sel f are tw o logi cal i nterpret at i on s. Fi r s t , "I under s t and thatthe j udge i s nota ' rubber st am p' f orthe di s tr i ct a tto rn e y in se n ten c in g ." S e c o n d , "E v e n tho u g h I un d e rsta n d the ju d g e is n o t a ' rubbers t amp' f

orthe di s tr i ctatt orney i n sent enci ng, I trul y bel i eve the j udge w i l l honorhi s r eques t , and thi s bel i ef i s a s i gni f

i canti nducementt o m y pl ea o f g u ilt ." E a c h in terp re tatio n is e q u a lly lo g ica l. A ci r cui tj udge has t he m os ts ol emn dut y t o m ake a bs ol ut el y cert ai n, t o the very bes tof

hi s orherabi l i ty, thata def endanti s m aki ng a trul y f r ee a nd v o lu n tar y p lea . A m u c h m o re tellin g c o llo q u y o f th e im p a c t th e p lea b a rg a in r ecomm endat i on had on C al l i ns ' s , or w oul d have on a ny def endant ' s , deci s i on t o pl ead gui l ty w oul d be, "M r . C al l i ns , I do no tint end t o honoryourpl ea b a rg a in w ith th e S tate . I d o n o t ca re if y o u h a v e a g re e d to fo rfe it y o u r c laim to $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 w o rth o f p ro p e rty . A t y o u r se n te n c in g h e a rin g , I d o n o t in ten d to s u s p e n d y o u r s e n te n c e a n d p la c e y o u o n p o s t- re le a s e s u p e rv is io n . In s te a d , I i ntend t o sentence yo u to serve t w enty years i n the pen i t enti ary. M r. C al l i ns, do you s t i l l w i s h t o pl ead gui l ty?" I ti s onl y w hen w e ca n s ay w i th conf i dence f r om the r ecor d bef

or e us t hatC al l i ns ' s answ erw oul d have bee n ' yes , ' evi nci ng a l ack of detr i m ent al r el i ance upon the r ecomm endat i on , sho ul d w e deny a n evi dent i ary hear i ng. T oday, w e ar e nots o pr epar ed.

### 22

Ca llin s v . S ta te , 2 0 0 7 M is s . A p p . L E X IS 2 4 3 , * * 1 9 -2 0 , ¶ ¶ 1 9 -2 0
. ¶27. W i th t he ut m os tre s pectforour l earned col l eague s on the C our tof A ppeal s , w e r ej ect th is a n a ly sis . W e c a n in terp re t th e ir lan g u a g e b u t o n e w a y . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls s u g g e sts trial ju d g e s, a t th e ti m e o f th e g u ilty p lea c o llo q u y , d e c lar e th a t h e /sh e d o e s n o t in ten d to
acc eptthe s ent ence r ecomm endat i on; and the tr i al j udge m us tde cl ar e the s peci f i c s ent ence he/s he int end s to im po se, w i tho ut t aking t he m at t er unde r advi sem ent and, m any t i m es,
w i tho ut the b enefi tof a present ence invest i gati on report . A ccordi ng t o the C ou rtof A pp eal s, thi s i nf or m at i on m us tbe r evea l ed t o the def endantatthe t i m e of

the pl ea he ar i ng. ¶ 2 8
. F irst o f a ll, th e re v ise d g u ilty p lea c o llo q u y su g g e ste d b y th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls w o u ld ju d icia lly a b ro g a te th e p ro v isio n s o f R u le 1 1 .0 2 o f th e M iss iss ip p i U n ifo rm R u les o f C irc u it
a n d C o u n ty C o u rt P ra c tice . U R C C C 1 1 .0 2 a ffo rd s o u r tria l ju d g e s th e o p p o rtu n ity to d ire c t, pr i ort o s ent enci ng, thata present ence i nves t i gat i on be conduc t ed and a r eports ubm i t t ed pur s uantt o the i nves t i gat i on. Such a pr es ent ence r eportus uall y w i l l cont ai n vi t al i nf or m at i on t o ai d t he tr i al j udge conce rni ng s ent enci ng. A ccor di ng t o U R C C C 11. 02, t he pr es ent ence r eportm ay cont ai n s uch i nf or m at i on as the def

endant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or y; f i nanci al condi t i on; educat i onal backgr ound; em pl oym entbackgr ound and m i l i t ary r ecor d;
s oci al r ecor d r egar di ng f ami l y r el at i ons hi ps , m ar i t al s t atus and r es i dence hi s t ory; and t he
env i ronm ent t o w hich the d efendan tw ou l d return i f given p robat i on . U R C C C 11
. 02 al so pr ovi des thatthe pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on c an f ocus on gather i ng i nf

or m at i on abouts peci al
r es our ces avai l abl e t o as s i s tthe def endanti f he / s he i s i n ne ed of

r ehabi l i t at i ve pr ogr ams or vocat i onal pr ogr ams, and/ ora phys i cal and ment al exami nat i on.

### 23

¶29. W e pos e thi s ques t i on: W hat i f , at the t i m e of the pl ea hear i ng, the tr i al j udge has no cl ue as t o w het herhe/ s he mi ghtl at erdeci de nott o acc eptthe s ent ence r ecomm endat i on beca us e of

w hatthe tr i al j udge w i l l l earn a f t err ece i vi ng a pr es ent ence r eportand/ orata l at er
s ent enci ng hear i ng, w her e evi dence of aggr avat i ng and mi t i gat i ng ci rcum st ances w i l l be
rece i ved? The pr act i cal ef f ectof the C our tof

A ppeal s ’ appr oach vi a thi s r evi s ed pl ea col l oquy w oul d be thats ent enci ng he ar i ngs a f t ergui l ty pl eas i n w hi ch ther e exi s ts ent ence
r ecomm endat i ons w oul d become obs ol et e. T he tr i al j udge w oul d be com pel l ed t o i nf or m t he def endantatthe pl ea he ar i ng as t o w hetherhe/ s he i ntended t o acc eptthe s ent ence
r ecomm endat i on. ¶30. R ece nt l y, i n T

ag g a rt v . S ta te , 957 So. 2d 981, 994 ( M i s s . 2007) , thi s C our ts t at ed: W e al s o t ake thi s oppor tuni ty t o m ake a f ew addi t i onal obs ervat i ons about s ent enci ng i n gener al
. T her e ar e atl eas tf ourge ner al l y r ecogni zed f act or s that an y sen tenc ing jud g e sh o u ld co n side r in the e x erc ise o f discre ti o n ary sent enci ng of

any def endantw ho s t ands bef

or e the courtf

ori m pos i t i on of s ent ence : ( 1) R ehabi l i t at i on; ( 2) R etr i but i on; ( 3) Sepa r at i on f r om s oci ety; and ( 4) D et err ence , both gener al and s peci f i c. I d . at 99 4
. W e the n p roc ee d ed to d iscu ss in m o re d etail the im p o rt an ce o f th e tri al j u d g e’s
con si derat i on of these w el l -r ecog nized sent encing fact ors. I d. at994- 95. H ow ever , bas ed
on w hatthe C our tof

A ppeal s w oul d now r equi r e of a j udge dur i ng the gui l ty pl ea c ol l oquy,
ourtr i al j udges no l ongerw oul d be abl e t o con si derthes e f act or s i n cas es i nvol vi ng a pl ea agr eement , beca us e the tr i al j udge w oul d be unabl e t o def ersent enci ng t o gatheraddi t i onal i nf or m at i on. A ccor di ng t o t he C our tof A ppeal s , the tr i al j udge w oul d have t o t el l t he

### 24

defend ant atthe ti m e o f the p lea heari ng w hat s pecif i c sent ence h e/ she i ntends t o im po se
u p o n th e d e fe n d a n t. ¶ 3 1
. A lso , itis h a rd ly a n u n c o m m o n o c c u rre n c e th a t o n e ju d g e in th e ju d icia l d istric t w o u ld conducta pl ea c ol l oquy w i th a def endantand ac cepta negot i at ed gu i l t y pl ea ( oran open pl ea) , and anotherj ud ge i n t he j udi ci al di s tr i ctw oul d i m pos e s ent ence upon the def endant ata l at er dat e. T his i s exact l y w hat happ ened i n today’s case. W e thu s st at e t he o bv i ou s. B ase d o n the C o u rto f A p p ea ls’ rev ised p lea c o ll o q u y , Ju d g e A y co ck w as re q u ir ed to info rm Cal l i ns a tt he pl e a he a r i ng tha tJ ud ge Fun de rbu r k was no tgo i ng t o a c c e ptthe St a t e ’ s pl ea
r ecomm endat i on. N otonl y that , J udge A ycock w as r equi r ed t o i nf or m C al l i ns as to t he
s peci f i c s ent ence J udge Funderbur k w oul d l at eri m pos e upon C al l i ns, ev en bef or e J udge Funderbur k r ece i ved the pr es ent ence r eportthatr evea l ed thatC al l i ns had notone pr i or fel on y co nv i ct i on (as h e st at ed u nd er oath to Judge A yco ck), bu tsi x p ri or f el on y co nv i ct i on s. ¶32. J udge C ar l t on s ucci nct l y anal yzed the maj or i ty’ s opi ni on: T he maj or i ty’ s hol di ng underm i nes the purpos e and va l i di ty of the gui l ty pl ea col l oquy. W her e the tr ans cr i ptof the pl ea c ol l oq uy re f

l ect s thata def

endant w as f ul l y i nformed r egar di ng a ce r t ai n cons equenc e of hi s gui l ty pl ea, he s h o u ld n o t la te r b e h e a rd to c la im th a t h e w a s u n a w a re o f t h e c o n s e q u e n c e . Callins , 2 0 0 7 M is s . A p p . L E X IS 2 4 3 , * * 3 8 -3 9 , ¶ 4 4 (C a rl to n , J ., d is s e n tin g ). ¶33. W e thus r ej ect the not i on that our tr i al j udges , at the t i m e of the gui l ty pl ea c ol l oquy i n cas es i nvol vi ng pl ea a gr eement s , mustbe r equi r ed t o decl ar e: ( 1) thatthey do noti nt end t o acc eptthe s ent ence r ecomm endat i on; and ( 2) the s peci f i c s ent ence they i nt end t o i m pos e;

### 25

so that this info rm ati o n can be co n v ey ed to the d efe n d an t befo re a cc ep ti n g the d efe n d an t’ s gui l ty pl ea. ¶34. I n s um , w e f

i nd thi s i s s ue r ai s ed by the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi i n i t s pet i t i on f or w r i tof cert i orar i m eri t ori ou s. CO NC L US I ON ¶35. Forthe f

or egoi ng r eas ons , w e r ever s e the j udgm ent of t he C ou rtof A pp eal s and
r ei ns t at e and a f

f i r m the A l corn C ounty C i r cui tC our t ’ s j udgm entde nyi ng C al l i ns ’ s m ot i on for p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef. ¶ 3 6
. T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE C OU R T O F A P P E A L S I S RE VE RS E D. T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE AL CO RN CO UN T Y C I RC UI T CO UR T DE NY I NG T HE M OTI ON F OR P OS T- CONVI CT I ON RE LI EF I S RE I NS TA TE D AND A F F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , EA S LE Y, DI CKI NS ON , RANDOL P H AND LA M AR, J J . , CONCUR. DI AZ , P. J . , AND GRAV ES , J . , DI S S EN T W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.