BELL v STATE

INTRODUCTION

This case involved the appeal by James Felton Bell after the Circuit court of Grenada denied him relief after conviction. He claimed that the sentence handed to him was disproportionate to the said crime, that the law allowed him to have a hearing of evidence to establish that it was his lawyer who advised him to forfeit $40,000 and then plead guilty of selling cocaine so that he avoids being sentenced for the maximum years that such a crime deserves, that judge of the circuit court erred in finding Bell’s motion as frolicsome, and that he affirmed this and found not an error.

FACTS

There are various facts that we can deduce from this case. These facts include: the reason for Bell’s indictment was because of selling cocaine in an area that was within the range of 1,500 feet from a church. This was Annotated in section 41.29.142 (1) (Rev.2009) under the Mississippi Code. His attorney negotiated an agreement of plea with the state which Bell accepted. The terms of the agreement were that Bell was to plead guilty of selling cocaine and then the state was to drop the projected provision and instead propose a thirty years sentence. Bell also agreed to willingly forfeit a sum of $40,000 to the district attorney’s office which was the district fifth circuit court. This amount was cited as proceeds from the drugs and sale of narcotics. This order of forfeiture that was signed by trial judge indicated that this amount was to be subdivided to the agencies that enforced the law in the county of Grenada.

Bell filled a petition on January 19, 2010 in which he entered guilty of selling cocaine. A hearing was held on January 20, 2010. Bell retained his counsel and the judge questioned him of the decision and also outlined the rights he would waive through a guilty plea. Bell recognizes these rights but he insisted that he was guilty. When the court hears the case, it sentences Bell to an imprisonment of thirty years at Mississippi Correction Department.

ISSUES

When Bell files a post conviction relief for evidentiary hearing he does it out of an advice from his attorney. He thought that after forfeiture of $40, 000 and enters a guilty plea the court will not have him serve the maximum term of thirty years for the crime. Bell also says that the money he gave out was not confiscated in the event of arrest. He had got the money from his family members in pursuit of reducing the term of the sentence as his attorney had advised him. This money was given to the district attorney under an agreement. Bell was denied the motion quoting from the plea discussion.

RULE

In ruling of this case the court cited the case of Smith v. State, 636 U.S. (1994). From this case when transcript coming from the proceeding of a court and incase the motion from post conviction is contrary; the motion becomes void and the petition stand. The court also cited the case of Ford v. State, 708 U.S. (1998). From this case PCR is never supported if in the records there are allegations in the petition.

The court also cited Solem v. Helms, 463 U.S. (1983). From this case, the court noted that evaluating of proportionality of any sentence that was under the Eight Amendment. Here a three prong test which considers comparison of a sentence with the previous rulings, gravity of the offense and harshness of a sentence, and other comparison of a sentence with other rulings of similar cases in other areas.

ANALYSIS

In this case, the Court recommended that Bill be sentenced to a jail term of 30 years in Mississippi Correction department. This was done regardless of the dependant having forfeited $40,000 and an agreement. Bell claimed that his lawyer misled him in the sentence. However Bell had answered several questions concerning his lawyer, his relationship with her and her performance, while under oath. It was also noted that his lawyer had informed him of the maximum term for the crime. Bells guilty plea contradicted other allegations in which he based his claims of not knowing what the sentence was likely to be. This is why the judges did not find any merit in the allegations.

In weighing whether the sentence handed to Bell was disproportionate, the court held that it would not have disturbed the case if it was within the limits of the statute. The court referred to the case of Hansley v. State, 72 U.S. (2011). This indicated that the judge’s sentence of 30 years was still within the limits of the recommended sentence in finding Bell’s motion frivolous when he was made to forfeit 60 days of earned time. This was derived from section 47-5-138 (3) (a) which states that an inmate can lose the total time he had earned in case he files a frivolous motion.

In conclusion, the appeal case by Bell who filed a guilty plea and forfeited a certain sum of money as proceeds from the crime did not materialize. His prevailing on his lawyer for misleading him did not have much impact on the case. However, it was due to the amount he forfeited that he was not handed the full sentence of 60 years.

References

Ford v. State, 708 U.S. (1998).

Hansley v. State, 72 U.S. (2011)

Smith v. State, 636 U.S. (1994)

Solem v. Helms, 463 U.S. (1983)