Opinion ID: 1919348
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Failure to Instruct on Ineligibility for Parole.

Text: ś 88. Hodges claims that the jury was improperly instructed on the verdict form that, if the jury cannot agree on punishment, the court must sentence the Defendant to a term of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Hodges also claims that the State exacerbated this problem by informing the jury during closing argument that the jury had the option of sentencing Hodges to life with parole. Hodges argues that these statements violate Mississippi law, which requires the jury to have been instructed that the sentence was without parole. He claims his due process rights were violated where the jury was given an inaccurate explanation concerning parole and erroneously believed Hodges could receive parole. Hodges argues that this requires his sentence to be vacated. ś 89. The State argues that the court complied with Mississippi law in instructing the jury, pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-21 which provides that every person who shall be convicted of capital murder shall be sentenced (a) to death; (b) to imprisonment for life in the State Penitentiary without parole; or (c) to imprisonment for life in the State Penitentiary with eligibility for parole as provided in Section 47-7-3(1)(f). The State argues that the court instructed the jury on all three options and the jury returned a death sentence. The State claims that even if there was an error, it was harmless error which does not require reversal. ś 90. The verdict form states that [y]ou have found the Defendant guilty of the crime of Capital Murder. You must now decide whether the Defendant will be sentenced to death, or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. The verdict form then goes on to instruct the jurors how their verdict should read if they sentenced him to death, if they sentence him to life imprisonment without parole, if they sentence him to life with possibility of parole and if they could not agree on a sentence. The jury was instructed on all three options, and the jury chose death. As mentioned previously, the main part Hodges now objects to is where the verdict form states that if the jury cannot agree on punishment, the court must sentence the Defendant to a term of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Hodges, during trial, objected to the form of the verdict but it was the part that dealt with the aggravators. The part Hodges brings up in this present appeal was not objected to at trial thus barring appeal on that issue. Holland v. State, 705 So.2d 307, 352-53 (Miss. 1997) (citing Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365, 369 (Miss.1987)). The verdict form was included in Instruction C-1, to which Hodges, at the time, made no objection to this part. Any objection to this part of the verdict form should have been made when the instructions were being considered. Procedural bar notwithstanding, this Court will consider this issue on the merits. ś 91. Hodges cites Turner v. State, 573 So.2d 657 (Miss.1990), for the proposition that the court must instruct the jury that a life sentence means life without parole. However, that case is distinguishable from the case sub judice. In Turner, the issue was whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the appellant would never be eligible for parole since he was a habitual-offender. Id. at 673. This Court held that the remedy for failure to conduct the habitual offender status hearing prior to the sentencing phase and failure to properly instruct the jury on the meaning of life is to vacate the death sentence and remand for new sentencing trial with proper instructions. Id. at 675. However, the case sub judice is not dealing with habitual offender status. Hodges would like us to extend the rule in Turner to the case sub judice because parole is not offered to defendants convicted of capital murder. However, this Court has held that the constitutional right to inform the jury that he was not entitled to parole has not been extended to defendants who are not habitual offenders. Smith v. State, 724 So.2d 280, 295 (Miss.1998). Hodges was not entitled to an instruction regarding his ineligibility for parole because he was not a habitual offender. ś 92. However, Hodges also claims that the trial court erred in instructing the jury, in the verdict form, that if they did not agree on a verdict that the court must sentence the defendant to a term of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Hodges argues that this misinformed the jury concerning the law in this matter and his death sentence should be vacated. He claims this error was also exacerbated when the State in closing argument stated that if the jury did not reach a verdict the court would sentence Hodges to life with parole. In Williams v. State, 445 So.2d 798, 813 (Miss.1984), this Court held that: A jury should have no concern with the quantum of punishment because it subverts a proper determination of the sentencing issue. Reference to the possibility of parole should the defendant not be sentenced to die are wholly out of place at the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial for two additional reasons. First, such references inevitably have the effect of inviting the jury to second guess the Legislature. The Legislature has declared that persons sentenced to life imprisonment may under certain circumstances become eligible for parole. Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-7-3(1) (Supp.1982). It is no more proper for the jury to concern itself with the wisdom of that legislative determination than it is for the jury to consider the Legislature's judgment that death in the gas chamber be an authorized punishment for capital murder. Johnson v. State, 416 So.2d 383, 392 (Miss.1982). Second, parole is not automatic. No person sentenced to life imprisonment has any right to parole. Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 11, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2105, 60 L.Ed.2d 668, 677 (1979); Davis v. State, 429 So.2d 262, 263 (Miss. 1983). Allowing argument or testimony regarding the possibility of the defendant some day being paroled is in effect inviting the jury to speculate how ten years in the future the parole board may exercise its legislatively granted discretionary authority. This would introduce into the sentencing proceedings an arbitrary factor proscribed by section 99-19-105(3)(a). (Emphasis omitted). This Court in Williams did state that parole consideration at a death penalty trial was improper. 445 So.2d at 813. This Court did find error in the prosecutor's repeated questioning of a defense expert about the expert's understanding that a life sentence usually meant thirty years in prison. Id. at 814. Likewise, it was error for the verdict form to state that if the jury did not agree on a verdict that the court must sentence the defendant to a term of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. It was also error for the State to comment on this during its closing argument. However, in Williams, this Court went further and stated that the discussion of parole was improper but found that the error was reversible only in that the trial court also erred in several other respects (discussion of the defendant's right not to testify and discussion of the defendant's right to appeal at different levels). Id. It is not necessary to hold that the instant error standing alone constitutes reversible error. Id. In Williams, this Court found that it may be true that none of these errors considered above would require reversal, but when they are considered as a whole for their aggregate effect, it becomes clear that Williams was denied a fair sentencing hearing. Id. In sum, the parole consideration error was only reversible in conjunction with the other errors in the Williams case. Smith v. State, 877 So.2d 369, 381 (Miss.2004). ś 93. Furthermore, the trial court strictly followed the language of the statutes and the jury was instructed in the verdict form of all three alternatives: death, life imprisonment without parole, and life imprisonment with possibility of parole. The following statutes are relevant to determination of this issue: Upon conviction or adjudication of guilt a defendant of capital murder or other capital offense, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death, life imprisonment without eligibility of parole, or life imprisonment.... Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101(1) (1994). If the jury cannot, within a reasonable time, agree as to punishment, the judge shall dismiss the jury and impose a sentence of imprisonment for life. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-103 (1994). (e) No person shall be eligible for parole who, on or after July 1, 1994, is charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole under the provisions of Section 99-19-101; (f) No person shall be eligible for parole who is charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under the provisions of Section 99-19-101; ... Miss.Code Ann. § 47-7-3(1)(e)-(f) (amended 1994). (1) An inmate shall not be eligible for the earned time allowance if: (a) The inmate was sentenced to life imprisonment; but an inmate, except an inmate sentenced to life imprisonment for capital murder, who has reached the age of sixty-five (65) or older and who has served at least fifteen (15) years may petition the sentencing court for conditional release; ... Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-139(1)(a) (amended 1994 & 1995). While it is true that the statute does provide for three alternatives, it is also true that the earned time allowance and parole statutes effectively eliminate the possibility of parole for someone convicted of capital murder. This is an inconsistency in statutes that needs to be addressed by the Legislature. However, the question now becomes whether this inconsistency caused prejudicial error in the case at bar. Where the jury imposes the death penalty, the fact that the jury was given the option of parole does not constitute harmful error. As this Court stated in Puckett v. State, 737 So.2d 322, 363 (Miss.1999), the true harmful error would arise in those cases where the trial court strictly follows the language of § 99-19-101 in capital murder cases, submits all three options to the jury, and the jury selects the option of life imprisonment. In this instance, the defense could argue that the jury was misled in that they selected the life imprisonment sentence with the assumption that the defendant may be eligible for parole, when in reality the defendant would not be eligible for parole by virtue of the parole and earned time statutes. The true harmful error situation did not occur in the case sub judice. The jury was given all three alternatives but it sentenced Hodges to death and not life imprisonment. Based on Williams and Puckett, this issue is without merit. ś 94. Furthermore, this Court finds that the language on the verdict form stating that if the jury cannot agree on punishment, the court must sentence the Defendant to a term of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole was improper because it was an incorrect statement of law. Pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101, the judge must impose a sentence of imprisonment for life when the jury cannot agree on the punishment and under our parole statutes a life sentence rendered pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 will automatically be a life without parole sentence. Even though this language in the verdict form was an improper statement of the law, such error was harmless since the jury, knowing that it had the life without parole option, chose death.