Opinion ID: 1684031
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court err in failing to consider alternative sentences provided under the youth court act?

Text: In the second proposition, Reed points out that the lower court refused to seriously consider Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-159(3). That section provides in pertinent part: ... If any child shall be convicted by any circuit court, the trial judge may, in his discretion, commit such child to the county jail for any term not in excess of one year, or he may suspend sentence and release on probation, or commit such child to the custody of the Department of Corrections or impose a fine as though the child was an adult, under such terms and conditions as he may prescribe.... Considering the fact that Reed was seventeen years old at the time of the sentencing, Reed contends that this section is relevant to the sentence imposed by the Court. In support of this contention, counsel cites May v. State, 398 So.2d 1331 (Miss. 1981). Citing May, counsel for Reed explains, This Court held that in those cases involving special circumstances surrounding a minor defendant the trial judge should consider seriously those alternatives enumerated in the statute. With these words in mind, counsel contends, Though the Court has given lip service to the consideration of alternative sentencing, the trial court failed to make the specific findings and set forth the basis for the ultimate sentence as imposed as required by the statute in May, supra .  Considering the foregoing facts, this Court believes that the lower court did abide by the requirements set out in May. In support of this belief, this Court reviews the reasoning in May. This Court holds: We think the Legislature, in providing alternative methods of sentencing of minors, intended in cases involving special circumstances surrounding a minor defendant, that the trial judge consider seriously those alternatives enumerated in the statute and that the presence or absence of facilities for care of a minor or offender be considered in the mitigation of the punishment provided by the statute... . The trial judge should have placed in the record the sources and facts of his study and should have permitted appellant's counsel to introduce evidence of the presence or absence of facilities administered at the Mississippi State Penitentiary... . Id. at 1340. Keeping these words in mind, this Court points out the lower court judge's extensive review of 24 letters submitted by acquaintances of the defendant. More specifically, the judge took into consideration the tender years of the accused in imposing the sentence. Along these lines, the judge admits that he is fully aware of the discretion afforded him by the Youth Court Act. Despite this discretion, it was fully within the judge's discretion to impose a life sentence. Having reviewed the record, this Court affirms the holding of the lower court. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.