Opinion ID: 1735029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the sentence for burglary exceeds the maximum authorized by mississippi state statutory law.

Text: ¶ 13. This Court is also faced with the issue of whether Pinkney, who pled guilty to burglary, is entitled to post conviction relief on the grounds that his sentence exceeded the maximum allowed by law. Pinkney argues that his fifteen-year burglary sentence is unlawful because the maximum sentence for burglary of a dwelling now is ten years. Pinkney is incorrect. ¶ 14. Although repealed in 1996, [1] the law in effect both at the time that Pinkney committed his crimes and at the time of his guilty pleas provided that the punishment for the crime of burglary of an occupied dwelling was not less than seven nor more than fifteen years. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-21 (1994). Pinkney's capital murder indictment specifically mentioned that the dwelling was occupied at the time of the breaking. Moreover, Pinkney's Petition to Enter a Plea of Guilty, that specifically and correctly states that the maximum sentence for the crime of burglary to which he was to plead carried a maximum of fifteen years imprisonment as punishment. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (1994) provides that the lower court may summarily dismiss the motion [i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief.... In this case, the trial judge concluded after review of the original motion together with all files, records, transcripts, letters, and all correspondence relating to the judgment under attack, Pinkney was not entitled to the relief and the motion was dismissed. ¶ 15. Pinkney's second argument is without merit. The trial judge was statutorily empowered to sentence Pinkney to fifteen years. This Court finds no error. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for post conviction relief.