OF JUDGMENT: 09/18/2017
MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. JOHN HUEY EMFINGER TRIAL
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JOHN PRINCE MARTIN C. R. MONTGOMERY
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS
IRVING, P.J., CARLTON AND FAIR, JJ.
Dennis Beal was convicted of the sale of 0.10 gram worth of
cocaine for thirty dollars and sentenced to serve sixty years
as a habitual offender without eligibility for parole. The
trial court also imposed a $2, 000, 000 fine. This Court
affirmed Beal's conviction on direct appeal. Beal v.
State, 134 So.3d 383, 387 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App.
After the filing of Beal's direct appeal, however, the
supreme court reversed the bribery conviction supporting
Beal's habitual-offender enhancement. Beal v.
State, 86 So.3d 887, 889-90 (¶¶1-8) (Miss.
2012) (reversing conviction for bribery arising out of the
same underlying drug sale incident). The State did not retry
the charge. Beal later sought leave to file a post-conviction
relief (PCR) motion, and the supreme court granted the
request for leave to proceed in circuit court. After a
hearing, the circuit court granted Beal's PCR motion. The
circuit then held a resentencing hearing and removed the
habitual-offender enhancement. Nevertheless, the court
resentenced Beal to serve sixty years in the custody of the
MDOC, reducing the fine and making no mention of parole or
other statutes allowing reduction of incarceration.
However, because the circuit court failed to make specific
findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to each
issue presented in accordance with Mississippi Code Annotated
section 99-39-23(5) (Rev. 2015), we must reverse and remand
for resentencing with the required discussion of the errors
asserted in Beal's PCR motion.
It is well settled that when reviewing judgments regarding
PCR motions, "[w]e will not disturb the trial
court's factual findings unless they are found to be
clearly erroneous." Mann v. State, 2 So.3d 743,
745 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). Questions of law are
reviewed de novo. Id.
Section 99-39-23(5) provides that:
If the court finds in favor of the petitioner, it shall enter
an appropriate order with respect to the conviction or
sentence under attack, and any supplementary orders as to
rearraignment, retrial, custody, bail, discharge, correction
of sentence or other matters that may be necessary and
proper. The court shall make specific findings of ...