Opinion ID: 1786952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was it erroneous for the lower court to deny acker's motion for re-sentencing in view of her physical and mental health?

Text: ¶ 10. We review the grant or denial of motions for resentencing under an abuse of discretion standard. Wallace v. State, 607 So.2d 1184, 1191 (Miss.1992). Due to the absence of a transcript of Acker's hearing, which apparently occurred on September 1, 1999, it is impossible to determine whether there was any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge when he later denied the motion. The trial court properly considered Acker's motion on its face, and without a hearing transcript we cannot say that the trial court reached an improper result. ¶ 11. Acker bases her appeal on the assertions that she did not have adequate mental capacity at the time of her plea of guilty to fully understand the ramifications of her sentence and that she has a physical condition which prevents her from participating in the RID program. Counsel for Acker proposes that Acker may have slight mental retardation which affected her judgment at sentencing and when she decided to remove herself from the RID program. No suggestion is made that her guilty plea was defective due to any lack of mental capacity. ¶ 12. Acker relies on Presley v. State, 474 So.2d 612, 620 (Miss.1985), in the hope of showing that this Court should remand to the circuit court so that Acker's medical and mental health history can be considered to insure that a just and proper sentence is imposed. This Court has stated that the trial court must consider all the facets, background and record in a sentencing hearing in order that a just and proper sentence may be imposed. Id. at 620. In Presley, this Court remanded to the trial court for resentencing to allow Presley's counsel to present mitigating circumstances even though the trial judge had given the Presley and his counsel opportunity to present mitigating evidence. Id. However, Presley must be distinguished from the present case. There, the appellant, who had stolen a few steaks from a super market was, due to his prior convictions, sentenced to forty years incarceration without the possibility of parole or probation as a habitual offender. The Court, while reaffirming the principle that sentencing within statutory limits lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, was confronted with the question of whether, under the circumstances, the sentence was so cruel and unusual as to be violative of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Finding that the sentencing hearing was not adequate for the purposes of a proportionality review and a determination of the basic constitutional question, the Court remanded Presley for a new sentencing hearing. ¶ 13. Here, Acker was sentenced to ten years, with the benefit of the RID program. Likewise, there has been no challenge to the validity of the sentence itself, and there is no indication that Acker, represented by counsel was prevented from offering evidence, either at sentencing or on the hearing of her Motion for Resentencing or Reduction of Sentence as to her medical condition or other extenuating circumstances. ¶ 14. In accordance with the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules, a presentence investigation is at the discretion of the trial court judge. The rule states in part: RULE 11.02 PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION AND REPORT Upon acceptance of a plea of guilty, or upon a finding of guilt, and where the court has discretion as to the sentence to be imposed, the court may direct that a presentence investigation and report be made. The report of the presentence investigation may contain, but is not limited to, the following information: ....financial condition, ... educational background,....present employment status and capabilities, .... social history,.....physical and mental examination . . . U.R.C.C.C. 11.02. ¶ 15. Acker believes that if an investigation into the areas mentioned above had occurred, any evidence regarding Acker's medical problems and mental limitations could have been recognized by the trial court judge before he imposed the sentence. Under Rule 11.02, pre-sentencing reports lie within the discretion of the trial court, and the judge cannot here be found to have abused that discretion. ¶ 16. Acker also refers to Dillon v. State, 641 So.2d 1223 (Miss.1994), where this Court remanded a pro se appeal to the trial court to allow it to supplement the record and clarify the issues. She points to the lack of transcript from the hearing on the motion, and argues that the absence of explanation in the lower court's order denying the motion, would require the Court to take a blind guess at material facts on which this case turns and asks that this Court remand this cause to the lower court for resentencing. In Dillon, however, the appellant sought review of a post-conviction proceeding where the record did not even indicate for what he was convicted, nor the ruling by the trial court on his original post-conviction motion. This Court remanded in order for the trial court to augment the existing record-not, as Acker seeks, a new hearing. ¶ 17. The record in this case does not demonstrate that the trial court committed any error in denying Acker's motion to resentence. There is no hearing transcript, and therefore no basis to support Acker's claim that the trial court erroneously denied her motion. Because of this fact, the presumption that the judgment of the trial court was correct must prevail. ¶ 18. Extensive case law recognizes this presumption of correctness. In Branch v. State, 347 So.2d 957, 958 (Miss. 1977) this Court stated that [t]here is a presumption that the judgment of the trial court is correct and the burden is on the Appellant to demonstrate some reversible error to this Court. This Court has stated: Our law is clear that an appellant must present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts and also that the matter was properly presented to the trial court and timely preserved. Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632, 635 (Miss.1988); Williams v. State, 522 So.2d 201, 209 (Miss.1988). Lambert v. State, 574 So.2d 573, 577 (Miss. 1990). ¶ 19. In Peterson v. State, 518 So.2d 632, 638 (Miss.1987), this Court reiterated: We have stated many times that it is the duty of the appellant to present a record of trial which is sufficient to support his assignments of error. Winters v. State, 473 So.2d 452, 457 (Miss.1985). Kelly v. State, 463 So.2d 1070, 1073 (Miss.1985). Dorrough v. State, 437 So.2d 35, 37 (Miss.1983). This Court has also explained: We have on many occasions held that we must decide each case by the facts shown in the record, not assertions in the brief, however sincere counsel may be in those assertions. Facts asserted to exist must and ought to be definitely proved and placed before us by a record, certified by law; otherwise, we cannot know them. Mason v. State, 440 So.2d 318, 319 (Miss. 1983). Accord, Wallace v. State, 607 So.2d 1184, 1189 (Miss.1992) (assertions in the brief without support in the record are without merit); Williams v. State, 522 So.2d 201, 209 (Miss.1988) ([T]he appellant bears the burden of presenting a record which is sufficient to undergird his assignments of error.). ¶ 20. Acker's inability to provide a record of the motion hearing is fatal to her claim. This Court cannot overturn the circuit court's ruling based on the record presented. This issue is without merit.