Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lewis v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

August 14, 2018

ARMOND RAKEEM LEWIS A/K/A ARMOND LEWIS A/K/A ARMOND RAHEEM LEWIS APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/03/2017

          JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. ROBERT P. KREBS COURT TRIAL JUDGE

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ARMOND RAKEEM LEWIS (PRO SE)

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BARBARA WAKELAND BYRD

          BEFORE LEE, C.J., BARNES AND TINDELL, JJ.

          TINDELL, J.

         ¶1. Armond Raheem Lewis appeals the Jackson County Circuit Court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). He claims the circuit court improperly revoked his post-release supervision (PRS) and imposed the remainder of his original sentences for aggravated assault and possession of a controlled substance. In those cases, he was originally sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) with twelve years suspended and eight years to serve. On appeal, we find no error and affirm the circuit court's judgment.

         FACTS

         ¶2. Lewis pled guilty to aggravated assault and possession of a controlled substance on August 12, 2011. He was sentenced to twenty years for the aggravated assault with twelve years on PRS and eight years to serve in the custody of the MDOC. He was sentenced to serve eight years for possession of a controlled substance. The possession sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the aggravated assault sentence.

         ¶3. At some point in time after his incarceration, Lewis was released on PRS. The State's notification of its intent to revoke Lewis's PRS was dated March 13, 2016. In support of its request for revocation of Lewis's PRS, the State alleged that: (1) Lewis was charged with domestic violence simple assault on August 13, 2015; (2) Lewis was arrested for false identification (ID) and possession of marijuana on March 7, 2016; (3) Lewis failed to report to the MDOC for over eight months; (4) Lewis failed to pay his MDOC supervision fees as directed; and (5) Lewis failed to pay all court ordered fines and fees as directed. While the State alleged Lewis violated his PRS in a number of ways, Lewis, through his counsel at the revocation hearing, denied committing only one of the enumerated violations-the August 2015 charge of domestic violence. To the remaining alleged violations of his PRS, Lewis made no denial. The circuit court held a revocation hearing on May 5, 2016. In its revocation order, the circuit court delineated that Lewis "[m]ore likely than not" violated his PRS on each of the grounds alleged. Lewis was ordered to serve the remainder of his two original sentences.

         ¶4. Lewis filed a PCR motion that was subsequently denied by the circuit court. Therein, Lewis claimed the circuit court erred in that: (1) the trial judge never asked Lewis why he did not pay his ordered restitution; (2) the trial court failed to hold Lewis's revocation hearing within seventy-two hours of his arrest; (3) the trial court failed to recognize that Lewis's alleged violations were only technical violations; and (4) the trial court unconstitutionally revoked Lewis's PRS. The circuit court found Lewis's claims to be meritless and denied his PCR motion. On appeal, Lewis claims that he is entitled to relief based on the same four grounds presented to the trial court.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         ¶5. A trial court's denial of a PCR motion will not be reversed unless it is found to be clearly erroneous. Stokes v. State, 199 So.3d 745, 748 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). The trial court's legal conclusions, however, are reviewed under a de novo standard of review. Hughes v. State, 106 So.3d 836, 838 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

         DISCUSSION

         ¶6. First, Lewis states that the trial judge violated the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in failing to ask Lewis why his restitution payments had not been made. However, he provides no authority requiring any such inquiry from the trial court. "It is the appellant's duty to provide authority and support for the issues he presents." Edwards v. State, 856 So.2d 587, 599 (¶45) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Rigby v. State, 826 So.2d 694, 707 (¶44) (Miss. 2002)); accord Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 526 (Miss. 1996). Even without the required authority from Lewis, we note that this Court in Mayfield v. State stated: "if a trial judge is considering revoking probation because of failure to make required payments, the United States Supreme Court hassuggested that it is the judge's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.