Opinion ID: 1852051
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court could consider a motion to enforce plea agreement filed after sentencing and brought for hearing after the term of court has ended.

Text: ¶ 8. The State claims that, because Presley did not file a motion to enforce plea agreement prior to the sentencing hearing, Presley waived his right to file such a motion. There is no Mississippi case, statutory law or rule on point, but there are rules of criminal procedure and case law in other jurisdictions which address this issue. ¶ 9. In Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), on direct appeal from a New York state court, the defendant withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of guilty after entering into a plea agreement. Between the entry of the plea and sentencing, another prosecutor took over the case. At sentencing the new prosecutor claimed not to know anything about the plea agreement with the first prosecutor. The defendant immediately objected, but the court nevertheless sentenced him to the maximum term. The United States Supreme Court held, when a guilty plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled. Id. at 262, 92 S.Ct. at 499. The Court concluded that: the interests of justice and appropriate recognition of the duties of the prosecution in relation to promises made in the negotiation of pleas of guilty will be best served by remanding the case to the state courts for further consideration. The ultimate relief to which petitioner is entitled we leave to the discretion of the state court, which is in a better position to decide whether the circumstances of this case require only that there be specific performance of the agreement on the plea, in which case petition should be resentenced by a different judge, or whether, in the view of the state court, the circumstances require granting the relief sought by petitioner, i.e., the opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty. 404 U.S. at 262-63, 92 S.Ct. at 499. ¶ 10. In State v. Woyan, No. 96CA1772, 1997 WL 426117 (Ohio Ct.App. July 21, 1997), the defendant pled guilty on April 24, 1996. On September 11, 1996, the defendant filed a motion to enforce plea agreement, and on September 13, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The appellate court cited a state criminal procedural rule as providing: A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before sentence is imposed or imposition of sentence is suspended; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his plea. ¶ 11. The court noted that its rule was similar to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d), [1] which has been interpreted as follows: Even though the general rule is that motions to withdraw guilty pleas before sentencing are to be freely allowed and treated with liberality, ... still the decision thereon is within the sound discretion of the trial court.... Thus, unless it is shown that the trial court acted unjustly or unfairly, there is no abuse of discretion.... One who enters a guilty plea has no right to withdraw it. It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine what circumstances justify granting such a motion. Id. at 3 (quoting Barker v. United States, 579 F.2d 1219, 1223 (10th Cir.1978)). Under the federal rule, a motion for withdrawal of a plea may be made at any time before sentencing and, on a sufficient showing, even after sentencing. 3 Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 537, at 188 (1982). See also United States v. Watson, 548 F.2d 1058, 1063 (D.C.Cir.1977) (There is no time limitation on when relief can be sought under Rule 32(d).). ¶ 12. The State points out that a judge may not alter or vacate a sentence once the term of court in which the defendant was sentenced has ended. Dickerson v. State, 731 So.2d 1082, 1085 (Miss.1998). In Dickerson, we treated a Motion to Enter Correct Sentencing Order and/or Correct Sentencing Order, Suggestion of Law, and Appropriate Relief as a motion to obtain relief from a final judgment. Id. at 1085. We held that, although the motion was filed prior to the end of the term of court in which the sentence was imposed, the defendant failed to set the motion for hearing prior to the end of the term. His claim on appeal was denied as a result. Id. at 1086. It is clear that, in the interests of justice, the merits of Presley's claims should be considered and the sentencing court should have jurisdiction over them so that manifest injustice may be avoided, even though his motion to enforce plea agreement was filed after sentencing. ¶ 13. With respect to the term of court issue, we find Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-16 (1991) clearly gives a circuit court authority to consider a pending motion after a term has ended. Dickerson v. State is therefore overruled to the extent it is inconsistent with this statute. ¶ 14. In Griffin v. State, 565 So.2d 545 (Miss.1990), the circuit judge, in ruling on post-trial motions, granted a new trial on two counts in the indictment but denied a new trial on the one remaining count. After an appeal had been filed, the two defendants escaped and fled the jurisdiction. When they were recaptured the State moved the circuit court to vacate the order granting the new trial and reinstate the sentences on the two counts. After a lengthy discussion, we held that the dispositive portion of the order setting aside the Griffins' convictions had all the finality of a final judgment, and clearly the passage of the next term of court deprived the circuit court of any further authority to reinstate them. Id. at 550. We find that this holding is correct if and only if there was no motion pending from the term of court in which the sentence was imposed. ¶ 15. In a case where a circuit judge revisited, pursuant to a sua sponte motion for reconsideration, a defendant's post-trial motions after an appeal was filed, we held that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to suspend a sentence after an appeal was filed, and the only time a trial judge can suspend a sentence is immediately after the defendant is convicted and at the time the trial judge announces and imposes sentence. If no appeal is perfected and defendant begins to serve the sentence imposed, the time has passed for the trial judge to suspend the sentence under § 47-7-33. Denton v. Maples, 394 So.2d 895, 897, 898-99 (Miss.1981). ¶ 16. Griffin and Denton do not need to be overruled because (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider a sentence due to the perfection of the appeal; and (2) there was no motion pending from the term of court in which the sentence was imposed to activate the applicability of § 11-1-16. ¶ 17. The case of Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Russell, 691 So.2d 929 (Miss.1997), wherein a circuit judge modified the sentences of four convicted felons, is distinguishable because the felons had been sentenced by other circuit judges in two instances, the felons had begun serving time in all four instances, no hearings were held in two instances, the felons' attorneys were never contacted in two instances, the State was never contacted in one instance, we had affirmed the conviction in one instance, and the elapsed time between two of the sentencings and the modifications were 4 years and 13 years. There was no motion pending at the end of the term in which sentencing was imposed in any of the four cases. ¶ 18. We have held that, in the absence of a statute authorizing a modification of a sentence, once a case has been terminated and the term of court ends, a circuit court is powerless to alter or vacate its judgment. Harrigill v. State, 403 So.2d 867, 868-69 (Miss.1981). Our holding in the case sub judice does not change the Harrigill holding because § 11-1-16 gives the circuit court the power to rule on a pending motion outside the term of court. Also, it is worthwhile to note that § 11-1-16 was adopted two years after Harrigill was decided. ¶ 19. Of course, our holding that a circuit court cannot rule on motions which are not pending at the end of the term of court when sentencing was imposed does not apply to U.C.C.C.R. 10.05, which provides that a motion for a new trial should be filed within ten days of the entry of judgment. Therefore, if the judgment is entered on the last day of the term of court, a defendant still has ten days in which to file such a motion.