I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - CP - 0 1 9 1 9 - S CT DA V ID L EE R IC

E a /k /a DA V ID L . R IC

E a /k /a DAVI D RICE
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 11/ 2012 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W . ASH LEY H I NES TR I A L C O U RT A TTO RN EY S: D A V I D LEE RI CE , PRO SE J AC QU ELI NE SM I TH COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: S UNFL OW ER C OUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: DA VI D LEE RI CE ( PRO SE) ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY : LI SA L. BLO UN T J O H N R . H E N R Y , J R . NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 03/ 20/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , C . J. , K I T C H E N S A N D C O L E M A N , JJ. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . D a v id L e e R ice fil ed a p eti ti o n for p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef in the S u n fl o w er C o u n ty C i rcui tC ou rt , argui ng that he had been i m properl y sentenced to l i fe w i th o u t pa role as a habi tual of

f endera f t era1996 c onvi ct i on f

oraut o bur gl ary. R i ce now appea l s the deni al of h is p e tit io n , c la im in g (1 ) th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in fin d in g th a t h e h a d b e e n p ro p e rly
se n ten c e d a s a h a b itu a l o ffe n d e r, (2 ) th a t th e trial ju d g e a b u se d h is d is c re tio n in fa ili n g to

### The Statedid not inc ludeRic e’ s c onvic ti on in Ca use2 in t

he ha bit ual -of fender 1 

### po rtionof Rice’s ind ictment. 2 re c u se h im self from co n side ri n g th e p o st- co n v ict ion pe ti ti o n , an d (3) th at his sen ten c e is
uncons t i tut i onal l y di s pr oport i onat e t o the cr i m e. Fi ndi ng R i ce’ s ar gum ent s t o be w i thout
m e rit, w e a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e trial c o u rt. FACTS ¶2. O n D ece m ber 18, 1995, a Sunf l ow er C ounty gr and j ury i ndi ct ed R i ce f or bur gl ary of an aut om obi l e i n C aus e N o. 95- 0269 ( “C aus e 4”) . A tthe t i m e of hi s i ndi ctm enti n C aus e 4, R i ce ha d thr ee pr i orf

el ony convi ct i ons on hi s cr i m i nal r ecor d. R i ce w as convi ct ed of rob b ery in C au se N o . 9 2 3 1 (“C au se 1 ”) in 1 9 8 5 . R ice w a s c o n v ict ed o f bu rglary o f a d w ell ing in C au se N o . 9 7 1 7 (“C au se 2 ”) in 1 9 8 9 . R ice p lead ed g u il ty to b u rg lar y o f a dw el l i ng i n C aus e N o. 10, 103 ( “C aus e 3”) i n 1991. O n February 6, 1996, the St at e moved t o amend R i ce’ s i ndi ctm entt o char ge hi m as a habi tual off enderpur s uantt o Sect i on 99- 19- 83 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode. T he tr i al courtgr ant ed the St at e’ s m ot i on on February 24, 1996, and R i ce’ s i ndi ctm entw as amended t o i ncl ude a habi tual
- of f enderchar ge. ¶3. A f

t era j ury tr i al i n Cause 4 on June 14, 1996, Ri ce w as f ound gui l ty of

aut o bur gl ary. B e c a u se R ice w a s c h a rg e d a s a h a b itu a l o ffe n d e r, th e trial c o u rt h e lda se p a ra te h e a rin g to det erm i ne hi s s ent ence . A tthe hea r i ng, the St at e pr es ent ed evi dence of Ri ce’ s convi ct i ons and s ent ence s i n C aus e 1 and Cause 3. A nn E vans , a r ecor ds s upervi s orf orthe M i s s i s s i ppi 1 D epartm entof

C orr ect i ons ( M D O C ) , t es t i f i ed thatR i ce h ad s erved one ye arand 315 days in p riso n in C a u se 1 . W h e n a sk e d w h e th e r R ice h a d se rv e d m o re th a n o n e y e a r o f h is
s e n te n c e in C a u s e 3 , E v a n s re s p o n d e d , “ Y e s , h e d id .”

### Rice filedhis first p etitionfor p ost-co nv ictionrelief in 2 00 5 to challen ge the v alidity 2 

### of h is senten ce in C ause 3 . Rice v. State , 910 So. 2d 1163, 1165 ( Mis s. Ct. App. 2005) . Ri ce as serted that

thetrial c ourt

lacke d theauthority to order hi s s entenc e in Cau se 3 to r un concurrently with hi s s entenc e in Caus e 2, whic h had been im pose d during a

previouscourt term. Id. T he Co urt o f Ap peals fo un d th at Rice w as pro cedurally b arred fro m seekin g p ostconvictio n relief b ecause h is petitio n was time-barred , an d becau se h is sentence fo r Cau se 3 h ad expired . Id. at 1166-67. In addition, thecour t f ound that Ri ce ’sbare all egati on of an illegal sentence w as no t sup po rted b y th e record . Id. A “p en p ack” is a collectio n of inmate record s maintainedb y M DO C. See Gall oway 3 

### v. Sta te , 122 So. 3d 614, 698 n. 7 (Mi ss . 2013) (c itationsomitted) . 3 ¶4 . O n Ju n e 1 9 , 1 9 9 6 , the tri al c o u rtissu ed a n o rde r in C a u se 4 , s e n ten cing R ice to li fe
w ith o u t p a ro le a s a h a b itu a l o ffe n d e r p u rsu a n t to S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -8 3 . R ice th e n a p p e a led h is
c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e , a n d th e c a s e w a s a s s ig n e d to th e C o u rto f A p p e a ls . R ice v. Sta te , 7 2 3 S o . 2 d 12 3 9 (M iss. C t. A p p . 19 9 8 ). T h e C o u rtof A p p ea ls u n an im o u sly a ffi rm ed R ice’s
co n v ict ion a n d se n tenc e. R elev an t t o the instan t ca se, the C o u rto f A p p ea ls he ld tha t R ice’s
s ent ence di d notcons t i tut e cruel and unus ual puni s hm entbe caus e i tw as w i thi n the l i m i t s s et b y th e h a b itu a l- o ff

e n d e r s ta tu te . Id . at1245. ¶5. O n J une 19, 2012, Ri ce f i l ed hi s s econd pet i t i on f or pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef , al l egi ng 2 f or the fi rs tt i m e thatthe tr i al courti n C aus e 4 had e rr ed i n s ent enci ng hi m as a habi tual of f ender . Speci f

i cal l y, R i ce a r gued thatthe St at e had f ai l ed t o pr ove thathe had s erved at lea st o n e y e a r in M D O C c u sto d y in C a u se 3 . T h is C o u rt g ra n ted R ice le a v e to p ro c e e d w ith hi s pet i t i on i n the tr i al c ourt , l i m i t i ng the i s s ue t o w hetherRi ce actual l y had s erved one ye ar orm or e of

hi s s ent ence i n C aus e 3. ¶6. A tthe hea r i ng on R i ce’ s pe t i t i on, the St at e i ntr oduced R i ce’ s “ pen pac ks ” f oreac h 3
o f h i s p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s i n t o e v i d e n c e . Gl o r i a Gi b b s , a r e c o r d s s u p e rv i s o rf o rM DOC, t es t i f i ed thatR i ce w as s ervi ng pr obat i on i n C aus e 2 w hen he w as a rr es t ed i n Cause 3. T he

### 4

trial c o u rt th e n re v o k e d R ice ’s p ro b a tio n in C a u se 2 , an d h e b e g a n se rv in g h is s e n ten c e in M D O C c u sto d y . L a ter , w h e n R ice w a s c o n v icte d in C a u se 3 , the trial c o u rt o rd e re d h is sent ence in C ause 3 t o run co ncu rr entl y w i th the sent ence h e w as pres entl y servi ng i n C ause 2. T her ef

or e, G i bbs e xpl ai ned, M D O C cal cul at ed R i ce’ s t i m e s erved i n C aus e 3 begi nni ng on the day he w as i ncar cer at ed i n C aus e 2. B as ed on thi s pr ocedur e, G i bbs t es t i f i ed thatR i ce had s erved one ye arand 305 days of hi s s ent ence i n C aus e 3. ¶7. O n D ece m ber11, 2012, the tri al co urtis sued an or derdenyi ng R i ce’ s pet i t i on f or pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef

, f i ndi ng thatthe St at e had pr oved thathe ac tual l y had served one ye ar orm or e of

hi s s ent ence s f

orC aus e 1 and Cause 3. R i ce now appea l s , r ai s i ng the f ol l ow i ng i ssues: I . W he t he r t he t r i alc our t erre d i n f i ndi ng t hatR i c e had s e r ve d one year or m ore of

hi s s ent ence i n C ause 3. II. W h eth er the tri al j u d ge a b u sed h i s dis creti on i n fai l i n g to recu se h im self fro m c o n side rin g R ice’s p etiti o n for p o st-co n v icti o n re li ef. III. W h eth er R ice’s se n ten ce is un co n sti tu ti o n a lly d ispr o p o rtion a te to t he cri m e. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶8. “W hen r evi ew i ng a l ow ercourt ’ s deci s i on t o de ny 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 f a c tu a l fin d in g s u n les s th e y are 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 sta n d a rd o f r e v iew is de novo. ” B ro w n v. Sta te , 731So. 2d 595, 598 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng B ank of Mis s . v. Southern Mem ’l

P ark, I nc. , 6 7 7 S o . 2 d 1 8 6 , 1 9 1 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 )) .

DI S CU S S I ON

### 5

I . W he t he r the t ri alco ur t er r e d i n f i ndi ng t hatR i c e had s e r ve d one y e a r o r m o r e o f h is s e n te n c e in C a u s e 3 . ¶ 9 . U n d e r S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -8 3 o f th e M is s is s ip p i C o d e , “ th e S ta te m u s t p ro v e th a t a def e nd a ntha s no ton l y b e e n a tl e a s ttw i c e pr e vi ou s l y c on vi c t e d b uttha the ha s be en s ent ence d t o and has s erved s epar ate term s of one ( 1) yearorm ore in any s t at e and/ or f eder al penal i ns t i tut i on. ” B og a rdv. Sta te , 6 2 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 3 , 1 3 2 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 3 ) (e m p h a sis in o ri g in a l) . T h e S ta te m u s t p ro v e th e s e e le m e n ts b e y o n d are a s o n a b le d o u b t. D a v is v. Sta te , 6 8 0 S o . 2 d 8 4 8 , 8 5 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ). A n in d iv id u a l se n ten c e d u n d e r S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -8 3 “ sh a ll be s ent ence d t o l i f

e i m pr i s onm ent , and s uch s ent ence shal l notbe r educe d ors us pended nor
s hal l s uch per s on be el i gi bl e forpar ol e orpr obat i on. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 83 ( R ev. 2 0 0 7 ). ¶10. A t R i ce’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng i n C aus e 4, the St at e r el i ed on R i ce’ s pr i orconvi ct i ons i n C aus e 1 and C aus e 3 t o char ge R i ce a s a habi tual of f enderunderSect i on 99- 19- 83. R i ce does n ot chal l enge the St at e’ s us e of hi s convi ct i on f

orr obbery i n C aus e 1, nordoes he chal l enge the char act er i zat i on of r obbery i n Cause 1 as “ a cr i m e of vi ol ence . ” Rather , R i ce ar gues thathe s pentonl y appr oxi m at el y f ourm onths i n j ai l af

t erhi s convi ct i on i n C aus e 3, and thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n count i ng hi s pr econvi ct i on j ai l t i m e t ow ard hi s t i m e s erved i n thatcaus e. ¶1 1. T hi s C our tha s h e l d tha tad e f e nd a nt ’ s p r e c on vi c t i on j a i l t i m e i s i ncl uded i n the cal cul at i on of

hi s t i m e s erved t ow ard a sent ence f orthe purpos es of

Sect i on 99- 19- 83. Fe a ze ll v. S ta te , 761 So. 2d 140, 142 ( M i s s . 2000) . I n Fe a ze ll , the def endantw as convi ct ed
o f m u ltip le c ri m e s a n d w a s s e n te n c e d to li fe w ith o u t p a ro le a s a h a b itu a l o ff e n d e r. I d. at141.

### 6

O n appeal, the d efendan tchall eng ed h i s el i gibi l i ty for habitual- of f enders ent enci ng, cl ai m i ng he had notyets erved more than a ye arf orhi s m os tr ece ntpri orconvi ct i on w hen he w as in d ic te d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . I d. a t 1 4 2 . T h e d e fe n d a n t ar g u e d th a t h e d idn o t co m e in to M D O C c u s to d y u n til h e w a s c o n v ic te d o f h is s e c o n d fe lo n y . I d. T he St at e, on the other hand, ar gued thatthe def endant ’ s s ervi ce t i m e began w hen he w as arr es t ed and j ai l ed on the
s e c o n d o ff

e n s e , p e n d in g tr ia l. I

d. T hi s C ourtr ecogni zed thatSect i on 99- 19- 23 of the M i s s i s s i pp i Code r e qu i r e s p r e c on vi c t i on j a i l t i me t o be c r e di t e d t owar d t i me s e rve d on a p ri s o n e r’ s s e n te n c e . I

d. S ect i on 99 -19-23 p rovi des: T he numberof

days s pentby a pr i s on er i n i ncar cer at i on i n any muni ci pal or c o u n ty jail w hi le aw ai t i ng tr i alon a cr i m i nalchar ge , or aw ai t i ng appea l t o a h ig h e r c o u rtup o n c o n v ic tio n , sh a ll be appl i ed on any se nt ence r ender ed by a courtof l aw oron any s ent ence s eta f t era l l a venues of

appea l ar e exhaus t ed. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 23 ( R ev. 2007) ( emphasi s added) . T hi s C ourtr eas oned that , by
enac t i ng Sect i on 99- 19- 23, the L egi s l atur e cl ear l y i nt ended thatthe l aw tr eatpr econvi ct i on a n d p o s tc o n v ic tio n in c a rc e ra tio n th e s a m e fo r d e te rm in in g tim e s e rv e d . Fe a ze ll , 761 So. 2d at142. The r e f

or e , thi s Courthe l d, “ s i nc e a c on vi c ti s e nt i t l e d t o f ul l c r e di tt owar d s ervi ce of hi s s ent ence f

orthe t i m e he w as j ai l ed pr i ort o tr i al , thatt i m e, l ogi cal l y, s houl d al s o count as t i m e s erved f

orpurpos es of

[ Sect i on] 99- 19- 83. ” Id . T h is C o u rtaffirm ed the d efe n d an t’ s s ent ence , f

i ndi ng thathe had s erved m or e than one yea ron hi s s econd c onvi ct i on f r om the tim e o f h is a rr e s t to th e tim e h e w a s in d ic te d fo r h is th ir d o ff e n s e . I d. at143. ¶12. R el yi ng on thi s C ourt ’ s hol di ng i n Fe a ze ll, the St at e as s ert s thatR i ce s erved one year a n d 3 0 5 d a y s o f h is s e n ten c e in C a u se 3 . A c c o rd in g to th e S tate , R ice ’s in c a rc e ra tio n in C aus e 3 r an f

r om hi s i ni t i al a rr es ton D ece m ber29, 1989, unt i l Jul y 18, 1991, w hen he w as

### Ric e wasinitially s entenc ed on February 11, 1988, to a three -ye ar suspended 4 

### senten ce withthree y ears of p rob ationin C ause 2. O n or abo ut Decemb er 29 , 19 89 , wh ile serving probatio n in Caus e 2, Ric e wa s arres te d for burgl ar y in Ca use3. On J anuary 19, 1990, the Sunf

lower County Circuit Cour t revoke d Ric e’s su spended s entenc e in Caus e 2 due to hisvi ol ati onof

prob ati on . OnJ anu ary 2 2, 19 90 , Ri c ewa s indi c t e d in C aus e3. Acco rdin gly , betwe en J anuary 22, 1990, and June12, 1991, Ric e wa s both serving his sentencein Ca

use2 and awaiting re soluti on of c hargesagainst him in Caus e 3. After

June 12, 1991, Ric e wa s s er

ving hi s s entenc e in bo th ca use s. Ric e’ s pen pac ks in Caus e 2 and Caus e 3 indic ate that he wasgiven twenty- one days ’ credit for tim e serve d in t

hoseca use s for thetimeperiod betwe en hi s arres t in Caus e 3 and therevocati on of hi s suspended sentencein Ca

use2. 7 re lea se d o n p a ro le, a n d a g a in fr o m A p ril 2 3 , 1 9 9 2 , w h e n h is p a ro le w a s re v o k e d , u n til Ju ly 2, 1992, the dat e of

hi s fi nal di s char ge. T he tr i al courtagr eed w i th the St at e’ s cal cul at i on and
c o u n ted th e e n tire p e rio d o f R ice ’s p re c o n v ictio n in c a rc e ra tio n in C a u se 3 a s tim e se rv e d in th a t ca u se . T h e tr ia l co u rt re a so n e d th a t “s in c e R ice w a s e n tit led to c re d it t o w a rd s h is
se n ten c e in [C a u se 3 ] fo r th e ti m e h e w a s in c a rc e ra ted in [C a u se 2 ], a n d re c e iv e d th e b e n e fit of havi ng s ai d t i m e count ed i n hi s fa vor , ther ef or e thatt i m e s houl d be count ed as t i m e s erved for p u rpo ses o f § 9 9 -19 -83 . ” T h e tri al co u rtalso b ase d it s rulin g o n th e fa ct th at R ice’s
s ent ence i n C aus e 3 w as or der ed t o run concurr ent l y w i th hi s s ent ence i n C aus e 2, f i ndi ng th a t e a c h d a y R ic e s e rv e d in C a u s e 2 w o u ld a ls o c o u n t a s tim e s e rv e d in C a u s e 3 . ¶13. R i ce a r gues that the peri od betw een J anuary 19, 1990, and June 12, 1991, dur i ng w hi ch he w as aw ai t i ng r es ol ut i on of the cha r ges agai ns thi m i n C aus e 3, s houl d notcountas t i m e s erved i n C aus e 3 bec aus e he w as actual l y s ervi ng hi s sent ence i n C aus e 2 dur i ng that tim e . W h ile th is C o u rt h a s n o t sq u a re ly a d d re ss e d R ice ’s a rg u m e n t, th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls 4 has he l d thatSec t i on 99- 19- 23 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode, w hi ch al l ow s a pr i s onert o r ece i ve c re d it to w a rd tim e se rv e d fo r p re c o n v ictio n jail tim e , d o e s n o t ap p ly to a p riso n e r w h o is

### 8

actua l l y s e rvi ng as e nt e nc e f orap r i orc on vi c t i on whi l e a w a i t i ng tr i a l o n a no the rchar ge. S ta n ley v. Sta te , 850 So. 2d 154, 156 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2003) . I n Stanley , the def endantw as arr es t ed f

ora cr i m e i n M i s s i s s i ppi and then tr ans f err ed t o A l abama t o aw ai ttr i al on char ges o f a c ri m e c o m m itte d th e re . I d. at 15 5 . T h e d efe n d an t w as c o n v ict ed an d sen tenc ed to li fe im p ri s o n m e n t f

o r t h e A la b a m a c ri m e . I d. Sever al ye ar s l at er , the def endantw as par ol ed by A l abama and w as r eturned t o M i s s i s s i ppi , w her e he w as convi ct ed and s ent ence d t o f i f t een y e a rs ’ im p ri s o n m e n t f

o r th e M is s is s ip p i c ri m e . I d. T h e d e fe n d a n t filed a p e tit io n fo r p o stc o n v ictio n re lief, c laim in g th a t, un d e r S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -2 3 , h e w a s e n tit led to re c e iv e c re d it t ow ar d hi s M i s s i s s i ppi s ent ence f orthe t i m e he ha d spenti m pr i s oned i n A l abama, s i nce he
w a s c o n tin u o u s ly in c a rc e ra te d fr o m h is a rr e s t to h is c o n v ic tio n fo r th e M is s is s ip p i c ri m e . I d. T he C ourtof

A ppeal s r ej ect ed the def endant ’ s ar gum ent , fi ndi ng thathi s re l i ance on Sect i on 9 9 -1 9 -2 3 w a s m is p la c e d . Id . a t156. T he courtr eas oned thatthe purpos e of Sect i on 99- 19- 2 3 is to e n su re th a t a p e rso n w h o , fo r so m e re a so n , c a n n o t ob tain rele a se o n b a il p rio r to trial, is c re d ite d f

o r t h a t p e ri o d o f i n c a rc e ra tio n if u ltim a te ly c o n v ic te d . Id . T h a t statu te d o e s n o t, how ever , r equi r e the court s t o al l ow cr edi tt ow ar d one sent ence forconf i nementon another
s e n te n c e a lr e a d y b e in g s e rv e d . I d. at157. T he C ourtof A ppeal s hel d that“a pr i s oner actual l y s ervi ng t i m e f

oranotherconvi ct i on i s not , w i thi n the m eani ng of Sect i on 99- 19- 23, bei ng hel d t o aw ai ttr i al . ” I d. ¶14. U nd er our holdi ng i n Fe a ze ll , the C ourtof A ppeal s ’ r eas oni ng i n Stanleya pp l i es equal l y t o the ca l cul at i on of t i m e served f

orthe purpos es of

Sect i on 99- 19- 23 and Sect i on 99- 19- 83. T hus , i f

Ri ce i s note nt i t l ed t o ha ve hi s pr econvi ct i on j ai l t i m e i n Cause 3 c r edi t ed
as t i m e s erved i n thatcaus e, then the St at e cannotcountthats ame t i m e aga i ns tR i ce f orthe

### 9

purpos es of

s ent enci ng hi m as a habi tual of f enderi n a s ubs equentcas e. H ow ever , w e f i nd th a tth i s c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Stanleyb ecause R i ce’s sentences i n C ause 2 and C ause 3 w er e or der ed t o run concurr ent l y. ¶15. T hi s C ourt has hel d that “s ervi ng one year or m or e on concurr ent s ent ence s i m pos ed f ors ep a r a t e convi ct i ons ar i s i ng outof s epar at e i nci dent s atdi f f er entt i m es amount s t o s ervi ng m o re th a n o n e y e a r o n e a c h s e n te n c e ” fo r th e p u rp o s e s o f S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -8 3 . B og ard , 624 So. 2d at1321. T her ef

or e, eac h day s erved on R i ce’ s s ent ence i n C aus e 2 w oul d al s o countas tim e se rv e d in C a u s e 3 . G lo ria G ib b s e x p lain e d th a t itw a s M D O C ’s p o licy to c a lcu late
concurr ents ent ence s by begi nni ng w i th the f i r s tdat e of

i ncar cer at i on f

orthe fi rs tcaus e. B ec au se R ice’s sen tenc e in C au se 3 w as o rde red t o run co n cu rren tl y w ith his sen ten c e in C a u se 2 , w h ich h e w a s a lre a d y se rv in g , G ib b s te stifie d th a t M D O C b e g a n c a lcu latin g h is
s ent ence s f

orboth caus es on Janua ry 19, 1990 – the day hi s pr obat i on w as r evoked a nd he
w a s firs t in c a rc e ra ted in C a u se 2 . T h e o n e y e a r a n d 1 4 5 d a y s R ice s e rv e d to w a rd h is sent ence in C ause 2 w hil e aw ai t i ng tr i al in C ause 3 b egan t o co un tas t i m e served i n C ause 3 w hen the tr i a l c ou rto r de r e d the tw o s e nt e nc e s t o run c on c urr e nt l y. The r e f or e , the tr i al
cou rtcorr ect l y cou nted R i ce’s preconv i ct i on j ai l t i m e i n C ause 3 as t i m e served i n thatcause f orthe purpos es of Sect i on 99-19- 83 and found thatR i ce c l ear l y had s erved more than one y e a r o f h is s e n te n c e in C a u s e 3 . W e fi n d th a t R ic e ’s a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e ri t. II . W h e th e r th e tr ia l c o u r t j u d g e e r r e d in fa ilin g to r e c u se h im se lf fro m co n side rin g R ice’s p etiti o n for p o st-co n v icti o n re li ef. ¶16. T he H onor abl e A s hl ey H i nes pr es i ded over R i ce’ s tr i al f or aut o bur gl ary i n C aus e 4. O n ap p ea l, R ice a rgu es th at Ju d g e H ines ab u sed h is discreti o n in fail ing to rec u se h im self s ua

### 10

s ponte f r om the post
- convi ct i on proc eedi ngs . R i ce cl ai m s thatJudge H i nes w as di s qual i f i ed from p residing o v er the p o st- co n v ict ion h ea rin g b e c a u se h e h ad p arti cipa ted in R ice’s
c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c in g in C a u s e 4 . ¶1 7 . W e fi n d R ice’s argu m en t h ere to be p roc ed u rall y ba rred . R u le 1.15 of th e U n if o rm R u les o f C ir cu itan d C o u n ty C o u rtP ra c tice a llo w s an y p arty to m o v e fo r th e re cu sal o f a j udge “i f i tappear s thatthe j udge’ s i m part i al i ty m i ghtbe ques t i oned by a r eas onabl e per s on know i ng al l the ci r cumst ance s [ . ] ” U R C C C 1. 15. H ow ever , U R C C C 1. 15 re qui r es a mot i on f orre cus al t o be fi l ed “w i thi n 30 days fol l ow i ng not i f i cat i on t o the part i es of the name of the j udge as s i gned t o the ca s e[ . ] ” Id . T he r ecor d re f l ect s thatR i ce ne verm oved t o have Judge H in e s re c u s e d fr o m th e p o st-c o n v ictio n p ro c e e d in g s, w ritten o r o th e rw ise . T h e fa ilu re to se e k re c u sa l g e n e ra lly is c o n sid e re d im p lied c o n se n t to h a v e th e ju d g e g o fo rw a rd in p re s id in g o v e r t h e c a s e . Tubwel l v. G r ant , 76 0 S o . 2 d 6 8 7 , 6 8 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). B ecaus e R i ce neve rr a i s e d the i s s ue o f r e c us a l b e f

or e the tr i a l c ou rt , h e c on s e nt e d t o ha ve Judge H i nes p re sid e o v e r th e p o st-c o n v ictio n p ro c e e d in g , a n d a n y a rg u m e n t to th e c o n tra ry o n a p p e a l is barr ed. ¶1 8 . N o tw ith stan d ing the p roc ed u ral b ar, R ice’s arg u m en t fail s o n it s m erit s. T h is C o u rt
a p p lies a n o b

jec tiv e tes t to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a trial ju d g e sh o u ldh a v e re c u se d h im se lf in a part i cul arm att er . “A j udge i s r equi r ed t o di s qual i fy him sel f i f a r eas onabl e per s on, kn owi ng a l l the c i r c ums t a nc e s , woul d ha rbo rd oubt s abo uth i s i mpart i a l i ty. ” R u tlan d v. P ridgen , 4 93 So . 2 d 95 2, 9 54 ( M i s s . 1 98 6) . The j ud ge i s p r e s umedt o be q ua l i f i e d and
u n b ia s e d , a n d th e c h a lle n g e r b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f o v e rc o m in g th is p re s u m p ti o n . Turnerv. S ta te , 573 So. 2d 657, 678 (M i ss. 1 990) . T hi s pr es um pt i on i s over come onl y by evi dence

### 11

ra is in g a re a s o n a b le d o u b t a s to th e v a lid ity o f th e p re s u m p tio n . B r edem eierv. Jacks on , 689 S o . 2 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 4 (M is s . 1 9 9 7 ). ¶ 1 9 . R ice cla im s th a t Ju d g e H in e s e rr e d in fa ilin g to re c u s e h im s e lf fr o m th e p o stconvi ct i on pr ocee di ng be c aus e he a c t i ve l y h a d e ng a ge d i n Ri ce’ s pr os ecut i on and convi ct i on. “W her e one a ct i vel y engage s i n any w ay i n the pr os ecut i on, he i s di s qual i f i ed f r om s i tt i ng a s a ju d g e in a n y m a tte r w h ic h in v o lv e s th a t c o n v ic tio n . B a n a n a v. Sta te , 638 So. 2d 1329, 1330 ( M i s s . 1994) ( ci t i ng Mo o re v. S ta te , 573 So. 2d 688, 689 ( M i s s . 1990) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on o m itte d )) . See al

s o M iss . C o d e o f J u d icia l C o n d u c t, C a n o n 3 E (1 )(b ). T h is C o u rt p re v io u sly has f ound tr i al j udges t o be di s qual i f i ed f r om rul i ng on cas es i n w hi ch they pr evi ous l y had
s e rv e d a s p ro s e c u to rs . See J e n k in s v. Sta te , 570 So. 2d 1191 ( M i s s . 1990) ( tr i al j udge rul i ng on def endant ’ s pos t - convi ct i on m ot i on had pros ecut ed def endanti n the under l yi ng cr i m i nal tr ial ). H ow ever , Judge H i nes neverserved as a mem berof the pr os ecut i on agai ns tR i ce, and th e re fo re d id n o t a c tiv e ly e n g a g e in R ic e ’s p ro s e c u tio n o r c o n v ic tio n . ¶2 0 . N ev erthe less, R ice p o ints o u t th a t Ju d g e H in e s a ll o w ed the S tat e to a m en d R ice’s in d ictm e n t in C a u se 4 to c h a rg e R ice a s a h a b itu a l o ffe n d e r a n d im p o se d th e h a b itu a lof f enderl i f e s ent ence thatR i ce l at erchal l enged i n the pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ng. W e f i nd thatthes e as s ert i ons al one do no trai se a r eas onabl e doubtas t o the pr es um pt i on of J udge H i nes ’ s i m part i al i ty, butm er el y i ndi cat e thatJ udge H i nes w as fol l ow i ng Sect i on 99- 19- 83
o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o d e a s a p p lied to th e c a se . A fte r re v iew in g th e tra n sc rip t o f th e p o stco n v ict ion p roc ee d ing , w e ca n fi n d n o ev iden ce that w o u ld ca ll into q u esti o n Ju d g e H ines ’s i m part i al i ty. J udge H i nes w as very acc om m odat i ng t o R i ce, a pro se l i t i gant , and al l ow ed hi m t o voi ce a l l of

hi s ar gum ent s and obj ect i ons dur i ng the po st -convi ct i on- r el i ef hear i ng.

### 12

B e c a u se R ice h a s fa iled to p re se n t th is C o u rt w ith e v id e n c e ra isin g a re a so n a b le d o u b t as to J u d g e H in e s ’s p re s u m e d im p a rt ia lity , w e fi n d R ic e ’s a rg u m e n t to b e w ith o u t m e ri t. I I I . W het her R i ce’ s s ent ence i n C ause 4 cons t i t ut es crueland u nusual p u n ishm en t. ¶21. R i ce a r gues thatthe tr i al courti n C aus e 4 err ed i n sent encing him to l i f e w i thout parol e, cl ai m i ng that s uch a sent ence viol at es the E i gh th A m end m ent’ s prohi bit i on against
c ru e l a n d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t b e c a u se it i s g ro ss ly d isp ro p o rtio n a te to th e c rim e o f a u to b u rglary . F ac tual an d lega l i ssu es ra ised in a p eti ti o n for p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef tha t w ere deci ded attr i al oron di r ectappea l ar e barr ed by r es j udi cata. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 1( 3) (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). B e c a u se th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls c o n sid e re d a n d re jec ted R ice ’s E ig h th A m en d m en t arg u m en t o n direct ap p ea l, the d o ctri n e o f re s ju d ica ta b a rs h im fro m ra isin g it
a g a in . ¶ 2 2 . N o tw ith sta n d in g th e p ro c e d u ra l b a r, w e fin dR ice ’s a rgu m en t here to b e w ith o u t m e rit. S e n ten c in g is w ith in the co m p lete d isc re tio n o f th e tri a l co u rt an d is n o t su b jec t to a p p e llate
re v ie w if itis w ith in th e li m its p re s c ri b e d b y s ta tu te . R e y n o ld s v. Sta te , 585 So. 2d 753, 756 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 ) ( c itatio n s o m itt e d ). R ice w a s c o n v icte d o f th re e se p a ra te f e lo n ies p rio r to h is
con vict i on i n C ause 4. Th e S t at e used tw o o f these pri or conv i ct i on s to ch arg e R ice as a habi tual of

f enderi n Cause 4. A f

t erdet erm i ni ng thatthe St at e had s at i s f i ed the el ement s of Sect i on 99- 19- 83, the tr i al courts ent ence d hi m t o l i f e w i thoutpar ol e. R i ce’ s sent ence w as w i thi n the l i m i t s setb y the s t atut e. W e f i nd thatR i ce’ s s ent ence does not“[ l ead] t o an in fe re n c e o f ‘g ro ss d isp ro p o rtio n a lity [,] ’” s u c h th a t a n e x ten d e d p ro p o rtio n a lity a n a ly sis is

### 13

w a rr a n te d . W

ilk e rs o n v. Sta te , 731 So. 2d 1173, 1183 ( M i s s . 1999) ( quot i ng Sm al lw ood v. Johnson , 7 3 F . 3 d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 4 7 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 6 )). CO NC L US I ON ¶23. T he tr i al courtdi d noterri n f i ndi ng thatRi ce s erved one yearormore of hi s s ent ence i n C aus e 3. I n addi t i on, R i ce w ai ved hi s r ecus al ar gum entby f ai l i ng t o f

i l e a r ecus al m ot i on in th e trial c o u rt. F in a lly , R ice ’s a rg u m e n t re g a rd in g th e p ro p o rtio n a lity o f h is s e n ten c e is barr ed by re s ju d ica ta , as i tw as deci ded on R i ce’ s di r ectappea l
. A cc o rdin g ly , this C o u rt
a ff irm s th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f R ic e ’s p e titio n fo r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f. ¶ 2 4 . AF F I RM ED . DI CKI NS ON AND RA NDOL P H, P . J J . , LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.