Edwards v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Edwards v. State

834 So. 2d 49, 2002 Miss. App. LEXIS 398, 2002 WL 1554455

CourtCourt of Appeals of Mississippi

DecidedJuly 16, 2002

DocketNo. 2000-CP-00327-COA

StatusPublished

This text of 834 So. 2d 49 (Edwards v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edwards v. State, 834 So. 2d 49, 2002 Miss. App. LEXIS 398, 2002 WL 1554455 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

MYERS, J.,

for the court.

¶ 1. This is an appeal of the dismissal of Richard Orlando Edwards’ motion for post-conviction relief.

FACTS

¶2. Richard Orlando Edwards pled guilty to transfer of a controlled substance in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Harrison County before the Honorable John H. Whitfield. He was sentenced to a term of seventeen years, suspended, with five years supervised probation. Two months later, Edwards was found to have violated his probation, which was subsequently revoked. Edwards filed his motion for post-conviction relief in February 1999. The circuit court held that he did not meet the procedural requirements and denied his motion.

ANALYSIS

¶ 3. Edwards asserts that he was wrongly incarcerated when his supervised probation was revoked without being tried and convicted of the traffic violations which were the cause of the revocation. Edwards was charged with reckless driving, driving with a suspended license, failure to yield to blue lights and siren and resisting arrest. These are exactly the offenses forbidden by the conditions of the post release supervision order.

¶ 4. A conviction of these traffic violations was not necessary to revoke Edwards’ probation. Younger v. State, 749 So.2d 219, 222 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.1999). It need only be shown that the defendant “more likely than not” violated the terms of the supervised release agreement. Id., quoting Berdin v. State, 648 So.2d 73, 78 (Miss.1994). We find no error with the lower court’s ruling in this matter.

¶ 5. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARRISON COUNTY DISMISSING MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HARRISON COUNTY.

McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MYERS, J.,

for the court.

¶ 1. This is an appeal of the dismissal of Richard Orlando Edwards’ motion for post-conviction relief.

FACTS

¶2. Richard Orlando Edwards pled guilty to transfer of a controlled substance in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Harrison County before the Honorable John H. Whitfield. He was sentenced to a term of seventeen years, suspended, with five years supervised probation. Two months later, Edwards was found to have violated his probation, which was subsequently revoked. Edwards filed his motion for post-conviction relief in February 1999. The circuit court held that he did not meet the procedural requirements and denied his motion.

ANALYSIS

¶ 3. Edwards asserts that he was wrongly incarcerated when his supervised probation was revoked without being tried and convicted of the traffic violations which were the cause of the revocation. Edwards was charged with reckless driving, driving with a suspended license, failure to yield to blue lights and siren and resisting arrest. These are exactly the offenses forbidden by the conditions of the post release supervision order.

¶ 4. A conviction of these traffic violations was not necessary to revoke Edwards’ probation. Younger v. State, 749 So.2d 219, 222 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.1999). It need only be shown that the defendant “more likely than not” violated the terms of the supervised release agreement. Id., quoting Berdin v. State, 648 So.2d 73, 78 (Miss.1994). We find no error with the lower court’s ruling in this matter.

¶ 5. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARRISON COUNTY DISMISSING MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HARRISON COUNTY.

McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

834 So. 2d 49, 2002 Miss. App. LEXIS 398, 2002 WL 1554455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-state-missctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack