Opinion ID: 1845868
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the trial court impermissibly pyramid multiple punishments growing out of the same set of operative facts?

Text: Appellant was charged in two single-count indictments, one for burglary of a dwelling, the other for attempted rape. The cases were consolidated for trial upon the appellant's motion. After his conviction on both charges, appellant was sentenced to consecutive fifteen and ten year prison terms. Appellant contends the consecutive prison sentences are contrary to this Court's holding in Thomas v. State, 474 So.2d 604 (Miss. 1985). In Thomas, the defendant was indicted, in a single multi-count indictment, for burglary, attempted rape, and attempted sexual battery. The defendant was convicted of burglary and of attempted rape and was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of fifteen and ten years. Expressing its chagrin with the multi-count indictment, this Court reversed and vacated the ten year sentence for attempted rape stating, The history of our disapproval of the multi-count indictment has been recited in several recent cases, and need not be recounted here. Suffice it to say that the `pyramiding' of multiple punishments growing out of the same set of operative facts constitutes reversible error in this state. Id. at 605. Appellant in the instant case contends his convictions grew out of the same set of operative facts and thus he is entitled to protection under Thomas. This Court disagrees. A defendant may be prosecuted for both burglary and attempted rape even though the two charges arise out of the same occurrence or sequence of events and even though there is an element common to each crime. Smith v. State, 429 So.2d 252, 253 (Miss. 1983). Likewise, upon such convictions, separate and consecutive sentences may be imposed. Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 365, 103 S.Ct. 673, 677, 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 542 (1983); Pharr v. State, 465 So.2d 294, 300 (Miss. 1984). Since the convictions of burglary and attempted rape in the instant case arose from separate indictments, and not a single multiple-count indictment, this Court holds Thomas v. State is distinguishable. Furthermore, consecutive prison sentences are authorized by Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-21 (Supp. 1986) which states: When a person is sentenced to imprisonment on two (2) or more convictions, the imprisonment on the second, or each subsequent conviction shall, in the discretion of the court, commence either at the termination of the imprisonment for the preceding conviction or run concurrently with the preceding conviction. For those reasons, this assignment of error is without merit.