Opinion ID: 1855169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: appellant was denied his right to an evidentiary hearing under the mississippi uniform post conviction collateral relief act (1984).

Text: ¶ 14. Pursuant to the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act a petitioner is entitled to an in-court opportunity to prove his claims if the claims are procedurally alive, substantially showing a denial of a state or federal right. Washington v. State, 620 So.2d 966, 967-68 (Miss.1993) (internal citations omitted). This court has further held, [u]nder the holding in Alexander v. State, 605 So.2d 1170, 1172 (Miss.1992), an evidentiary hearing is necessary if the plea hearing `does not reflect that [the petitioner] was advised concerning the rights of which he allegedly claims ignorance.' Roland v. State, 666 So.2d 747, 751 (Miss. 1995). ¶ 15. When Bell pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery in Lee County Circuit Court, the trial judge sentenced him to two twenty-year terms to run concurrently with any sentence Bell had received in federal district court in the Northern District of Mississippi. However, from the limited record presented, it appears Bell's federal sentence will not begin to run until he is released from custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and turned over to federal authorities. In support of a hearing on his motion for post conviction relief, Bell offered a letter dated August 30, 1995, from federal authorities informing Bell that his federal sentence would run consecutively to, as opposed to concurrently to, his state sentence. As such, Bell may be able to show that the letter, which is dated after the three year statute of limitations had run, constitutes new evidence not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial which would have caused a different result in the sentence. Hence, we find the trial judge erred in denying Bell's motion for post-conviction relief without first holding an evidentiary hearing to determine if the letter from federal authorities would constitute new evidence so as to except Bell's motion from the three-year statute of limitations period within the Act. ¶ 16. Should the trial court find Bell's claim to be excepted from the three-year statute of limitations period within the Act, Bell is entitled to seek the proper execution of his sentence. ¶ 17. As it now stands, Bell will serve out the remainder of his state sentence and only then begin serving his federal timein contradiction to the trial judge's order that the federal sentence and state sentences be served concurrently. ¶ 18. The State argues that the trial court lacked the authority in the first instance to order Bell's state sentence to run concurrently to his federal sentence, and, therefore, that portion of the judgment should be treated as mere surplusage, and simply disregarded. We disagree. This Court has repeatedly recognized that sentencing is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and is not to be disturbed so long as it is within the sentencing range provided by the legislature. See, e.g., Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 537 (Miss.1996); Hopson v. State, 625 So.2d 395, 404 (Miss.1993); Davis v. State, 724 So.2d 342, 344 (Miss. 1998). A canvassing of state opinions reveals a number of instances in which this court has left undisturbed a trial court's discretionary order that a state sentence was to run concurrently to a federal sentence. See, e.g., State of Mississippi v. Pittman, No. 97-CA-00265-SCT, 1998 WL 541982 (Miss.1998); Vice v. State of Mississippi, 679 So.2d 205 (Miss.1996). Moreover, the Mississippi legislature has enacted no law limiting the exercise of discretion in this manner. Noting that it has been the widespread custom and practice for trial judges to provide for federal and state sentences to be run concurrently, we decline to restrict the discretion of trial judges in this regard. ¶ 19. We specifically find that the trial judge's order for the state sentence to run concurrently to the federal sentence does not constitute mere surplusage [to be] simply disregarded. If that portion of the order were disregarded, the trial judge's original sentence would be overturned without a concomitant finding of abuse of discretion. Also, the sentence would, in effect, be modified after the end of the term of court in which Bell was sentenced, a practice which this Court has forbidden. See Dickerson v. State, 731 So.2d 1082, 1084 (Miss.1998); see also Mississippi Comm'n of Judicial Performance v. Russell, 691 So.2d 929 (Miss. 1997). ¶ 20. Should the trial court determine Bell has newly discovered evidence which may justify relief, the trial judge should hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the status of Bell's state and federal sentences. Once the status of both sentences is determined, the trial judge could take appropriate action to ensure his original sentencing order is properly carried out. For example, the trial judge could order Bell released from state custody and turned over to federal officials to begin serving his federal sentence. Bell's time in federal custody could then be counted against his remaining state sentence. Such an approach would not require the trial court to modify Bell's original sentence. Rather the trial court would simply be exercising its power to see that its sentence was properly carried out.