Opinion ID: 1694928
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: edwards was punished with the maximum sentence possible for proceeding to trial, rather than entering a plea of guilty to these charges, in violation of the fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendments to the united states constitution, as well as article 3, sections 14, 16 and 31 of the mississippi constitution.

Text: ¶ 50. Edwards contends that his sentence was enhanced because he chose to have a trial by jury rather than accepting a plea bargain agreement. The circuit court sentenced Edwards to twenty-five years imprisonment, whereas prosecution offered a plea bargain for six years imprisonment. In addition, Edwards urges this Court to reconsider its ruling in Fermo v. State, 370 So.2d 930, 933 (Miss.1979) because he alleges that it provides no effective bar to a defendant being punished for proceeding to trial. More specifically, Edwards alleges that Fermo's holding that a trial judge that remains aloof from the plea-bargain process proves that the accused was not punished for having a trial is irrelevant in present day courtrooms. Further, Edwards asserts that the record does not reflect that the trial court judge would have rejected the State's six-year plea recommendation. ¶ 51. Edwards relies upon Temple v. State, 498 So.2d 379, 381 (Miss.1986) citing that it is unpermissable [sic] for a trial judge to impose a heavier sentence based in whole or in part upon a defendant's exercise of his constitutionally protected right to a trial. Edwards urges this Court to at least modify Fermo so that it does not negate the Temple principle simply because a trial judge is not involved in the plea bargaining process. ¶ 52. As clarification, in part, for this issue, it is important to note that Fermo also contains the same language in its opinion as quoted by Edwards in Temple. In fact, numerous cases cite this principle. See Johnson v. State, 666 So.2d 784 (Miss. 1995); Gillum v. State, 468 So.2d at 864; Williams v. State, 784 So.2d 230, 237 (Miss.Ct.App.2000). Further, this Court in Temple followed the same analysis as Fermo. In Temple, this Court affirmed an enhanced sentence by the trial judge even though the plea bargain, offer by the prosecution, was for a lesser prison term. Temple, 498 So.2d at 381. This Court further held that the comments by the trial court revealed that the judge was aloof' from the plea negotiations, circumspect and unbiased pursuant to Fermo. Id. at 382. Therefore, this Court finds that Edwards's reliance upon Temple is somewhat misplaced in the sense that Temple and Fermo have been and continue to be in harmony with each other. In addition, case law from Fermo and it progeny is sound law that should not be modified in any manner. ¶ 53. In a recent Court of Appeals case, the same issue of an enhanced sentence was addressed. The Court of Appeals in Lawrence v. State, 780 So.2d 652, 658 (Miss.Ct.App.2001) stated the following: It is a defendant's right and a choice to trial by jury. No one forced him to go to trial to be judged by a jury of his peers. He chose to do so and this Court will not reverse the trial court's verdict and sentence because the defendant does not like the consequences of his choices. The Court of Appeals continued its analysis in Lawrence, relying upon Taylor v. State , as follows: In Taylor, the appellant argued that because he refused the offered plea bargain he was punished for demanding a trial. Taylor v. State, 741 So.2d 960 (Miss.Ct.App.1999). In citing Reynolds v. State, 585 So.2d 753, 756 (Miss.1991), the Taylor court agreed that the imposition of a defendant's sentence is within the discretion of the trial court, and generally, this Court will not review the sentence if it is within the statutory limits. Taylor, 741 So.2d at 964. The court also held in Taylor, [t]he court does not err in sentencing the defendant to a greater sentence than that which was offered in the plea bargaining process where the record reflects that the court remained aloof from the bargaining process or was unaware of the bargaining. Id. (citing Temple v. State, 498 So.2d 379, 381 (Miss.1986)). In Johnson v. State, 666 So.2d 784, 797 (Miss.1995), this Court held that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in imposing a heavier sentence if the record reveals that the sentence was based on a presentence report and prior convictions. Johnson, 666 So.2d at 797 (citing Gillum v. State, 468 So.2d 856, 864 (Miss.1985)). See also Williams v. State, 784 So.2d at 237. ¶ 54. The record reflects that Edwards refused the plea bargain even though his attorney urged him to accept the offer. The trial judge was not aware of any prior plea negotiations with Edwards. Only at the sentencing phase of the trial was the trial judge made aware of former negotiations. Both the State and Edwards addressed the plea negotiations in the sentencing arguments before the court. The sentencing phase of the trial revealed that Edwards had sixteen prior convictions. The trial judge stated in part at the sentencing hearing, the following: So, I found that the State has proven that you are, in fact, a habitual offender. And I do find and do believe that, based upon the facts of the case and your prior convictions, Mr. Edwards, that you should and you are hereby sentenced to serve twenty-five years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections as an habitual offender.... ¶ 55. In this Court's opinion, Edwards's issue is without merit. The trial judge was not aware of previous plea negotiations, Edwards was proved to be a habitual offender, and the sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment was within the statutory guidelines. Edwards was aware that the plea offer by the State would be withdrawn if not accepted. The trial judge did not base the sentence upon Edwards's request for a trial. Instead, the sentence was based upon listening to the prosecution's and the defense's sentencing arguments, the facts of the case, and Edwards's prior sixteen convictions. Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in the sentencing of Edwards. This issue is without merit