Eric Young v. State of Mississippi

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2016-CP-01760-COA
ERIC YOUNG A/K/A ERIC D. YOUNG APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/17/2016
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JEFF WEILL SR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ERIC YOUNG (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BILLY L. GORE
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED: 08/14/2018
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., FAIR AND TINDELL, JJ.
FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. In January 2010, Eric Young pled guilty to armed robbery. He was sentenced to
twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with fifteen years
to serve, five years suspended, and two years of supervised probation. Young filed a motion
for “reconsideration of guilty plea and sentence” two weeks later. The circuit court entered
an order denying the motion in 2014.
¶2. Young then filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), claiming that his sentence
violated the Equal Protection Clause because his co-defendant had received a more lenient
sentence, with just ten years to serve. The circuit court dismissed the petition, noting that
Young’s sentence was legal and substantially below the maximum penalty for armed robbery,
which is life in prison. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-79 (Rev. 2014). The court also noted that
disparate sentences for co-defendants do not, by themselves, suggest any constitutional
infirmity in either sentence. It quoted our decision in Young v. State, 919 So. 2d 1047, 1049-
50 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005), where this Court held:
There are no statutes or case law stating that a defendant must receive a
sentence proportionate to a sentence imposed on an accomplice. Sentences
between co-defendants are, often times, different. Also, the recommendations
in regards to sentencing come from the district attorney’s office, and each
judge makes an independent determination as to what the sentence should be.
The duty of this Court is not to determine the working mind of the sentencing
judge or to determine the reasons why the judge gave that sentence to the
defendant.
(Quoting Booker v. State, 840 So. 2d 801, 805 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003)).
¶3. On appeal, Young abandons his original claim and raises four new issues: (1) his
counsel was ineffective; (2) there has been an intervening decision which would have
adversely affected the outcome of his sentence; (3) the circuit court failed to establish that
his plea was voluntary; and (4) his constitutional rights were violated. Since Young did not
raise these issues in the trial court, we are precluded from reviewing them on appeal. See
Fluker v. State, 17 So. 3d 181, 183 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). Thus, we affirm the circuit
court’s dismissal of Young’s PCR petition.
¶4. AFFIRMED.
LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CARLTON, WILSON,
GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.
2