Opinion ID: 1847254
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: dickerson is entitled to relief as he endeavored to obtain relief from a final judgment before the expiration of 10 days.

Text: ¶ 22. Dickerson next argues that his motion to reconsider sentence was properly before the court as it was filed within ten (10) days after the final order issuing Dickerson's sentence. Dickerson complains that the judge did not consider the motion until after the June and July terms of court had expired. In support of his position, Dickerson cites Uniform Circuit and County Court Rule 10.05 which governs motions for new trials. ¶ 23. Rule 10.05(6) says in relevant part: A motion for a new trial must be made within ten days of the entry of judgment. The trial judge may hear and determine a motion for new trial at any time and in any county or judicial district within the trial judge's jurisdiction. The court may, with the consent of the defendant, order a new trial of its own initiative before the entry of judgment and imposition of sentence.... URCCC 10.05(6) (emphasis added). ¶ 24. In Dyer v. State, 300 So.2d 788, 789 (Miss.1974), this Court stated: A trial judge is not charged with knowledge of every paper filed with the court clerk. It is not the duty of the judge, ex mero motu, to search out and bring up such matters. On the other hand, the affirmative duty rests upon a party filing a motion to follow up this action by bringing it to the attention of the judge and by requesting a hearing upon it. ¶ 25. In the case at bar, Dickerson filed his motion for reconsideration on May 31, 1996. This motion was not called up until August 9, 1996, when a hearing was conducted. During the final hearing on October 8, 1997, the prosecutor pointed out that the June and July terms of court came and went while Dickerson made no attempt to bring his motion up for a hearing. As stated above, it was not Judge Vlahos' responsibility to ensure that the motion was heard during the term. Dickerson had an affirmative obligation to bring his motion to the attention of the judge to ensure that it was considered before the term expired and the onus for failure to do so necessarily falls on the Dickerson. ¶ 26. Further, Dickerson misapplies Rule 10.05. Rule 10.05 governs motions for new trials, not motions for reconsideration of the sentence imposed following conviction. Rule 10.05 is inapplicable here because Dickerson never went to trial, but instead entered a voluntary plea of guilty. Judge Vlahos correctly stated that [w]e're not talking about a motion for a new trial, we're not talking about any of the other civil motions, we're talking about a decision that I think judges have to make coldly and objectively, and I think I did that on the first day that I sentenced him. ¶ 27. Despite the timely filing of Dickerson's motion, he failed to bring it to the attention of the judge before the end of the court. As a result, this claim is denied.