Opinion ID: 1800634
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jury instructions on parole eligibility.

Text: ¶ 42. Hodges next argues that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to be instructed that Hodges was eligible for a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. He also argues that the problem was compounded when the State made the same allegation in its closing argument to the jury. As the State points out, this issue was raised by Hodges on direct appeal. This Court stated: While it is true that the statute [Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101] does provide for three alternatives, it is also true that the earned time allowance and parole statutes effectively eliminate the possibility of parole for someone convicted of capital murder. This is an inconsistency in statutes that needs to be addressed by the Legislature. However, the question now becomes whether this inconsistency caused prejudicial error in the case at bar. Where the jury imposes the death penalty, the fact that the jury was given the option of parole does not constitute harmful error. As this Court stated in Puckett v. State, 737 So.2d 322, 363 (Miss.1999), the true harmful error would arise in those cases where the trial court strictly follows the language of § 99-19-101 in capital murder cases, submits all three options to the jury, and the jury selects the option of life imprisonment. In this instance, the defense could argue that the jury was misled in that they selected the life imprisonment sentence with the assumption that the defendant may be eligible for parole, when in reality the defendant would not be eligible for parole by virtue of the parole and earned time statutes. The true harmful error situation did not occur in the case sub judice. The jury was given all three alternatives but it sentenced Hodges to death and not life imprisonment. Based on Williams and Puckett, this issue is without merit. Furthermore, this Court finds that the language on the verdict form stating that if the jury cannot agree on punishment, the court must sentence the Defendant to a term of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole was improper because it was an incorrect statement of law. Pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. 99-19-101, the judge must impose a sentence [] of imprisonment for life when the jury cannot agree on the punishment and under our parole statutes a life sentence rendered pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101 will automatically be a life without parole sentence. Even though this language in the verdict form was an improper statement of the law, such error was harmless since the jury, knowing that it had the life without parole option, chose death. Hodges, 912 So.2d at 772. Hodges is barred by res judicata from raising this issue. See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3).