Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Kendall SESSUMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.

LEE, P.J., for the Court.

¶ 1. In January 1993, Kendall Sessums pled guilty to DUI manslaughter and operating a motor vehicle under the influence, causing mutilation. In December 2003, Sessums filed a motion seeking post-conviction relief. The motion was dismissed by the trial court. It is from this dismissal that Sessums now files his appeal, arguing that his sentence of consecutive terms "for a single unintentional act" exposed him to double jeopardy in violation of the United States Constitution. The State argues that Sessums's double jeopardy claim is time-barred.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 2. "In reviewing a trial court's decision to deny a motion for post-conviction relief the standard of review is clear. The trial court's denial will not be reversed absent a finding that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous." Smith v. State, 806 So.2d 1148, 1150 (¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App. 2002).

DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE

I. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DISMISSING SESSUM'S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF?

¶ 3. The State urges that the trial court properly dismissed Sessums's motion because the motion was not timely filed. This Court is inclined to agree. Sessums's double jeopardy claims are procedurally barred. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 99-39-21(1) (Supp. 2002). "Failure to address a claim of double jeopardy at trial concludes that issue, it cannot then be raised initially in a motion for post-conviction relief." Henley v. State, 749 So.2d 246, 249 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (citing Mann v. State, 490 So.2d 910, 911 (Miss. 1986)).

¶ 4. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing Sessums's motion for post-conviction relief.

¶ 5. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEAKE COUNTY DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LEAKE COUNTY.

KING, C.J., BRIDGES, P.J., IRVING, MEYERS, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SESSUMS v. STATE
(Apr 19, 2005)