Steven Riddle v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2000-CP-01692-COA
STEVEN RIDDLE A/K/A STEVEN E. RIDDLE
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
08/30/2000
HON. JOHN H. WHITFIELD
HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PRO SE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN
CONO CARANNA
CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF
PCR DENIED
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART 04/30/2002
5/21/2002
BEFORE KING, P.J., THOMAS, AND MYERS, JJ.
MYERS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. In June of 1997, Steven Riddle pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Harrison County to felony shoplifting
as a habitual offender as he had five previous felony convictions. Riddle was given a suspended sentence
and supervised probation neither of which is allowed for habitual offenders. Miss. Code Ann. § 44-7-33
(Supp. 2001). Riddle challenges his sentencing in a post-conviction relief motion claiming that it was illegal
and his plea was coerced. Riddle asserts that prior to the plea, his attorney promised that the "habitual" was
not to be worried about because the county wanted Riddle released to seek medical help for which they did
not intend to pay.
¶2. He pled guilty and the judge granted him a lenient sentence. Sentencing is within the discretion of the
judge unless the statute requires a mandatory sentence. Winston v. State, 726 So. 2d 197, 205 (¶ 26)
(Miss. Ct. App. 1998). Riddle's sentence should have been a mandatory term with no suspension of his
sentence. However, Riddle was allowed supervised probation and would have remained free if he had not
violated the terms of his probation by failing to adhere to several of the conditions.
¶3. At his revocation hearing in May1999, Riddle was found by the court to be in violation of his probation.
In June 1999, the court, re-sentenced Riddle as a habitual offender and ordered him to serve the original
term of five years.
When a defendant is found to have violated the terms and conditions of his probation, the court has
the power to impose any sentence which originally could have been imposed. However, if a guilty
plea is accepted and a suspended sentence imposed, the court cannot later impose a period of
incarceration exceeding the original suspended sentence.
Johnson v. State, 753 So. 2d 449, 455 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999), quoting Leonard v. State, 271 So.
2d 445, 447 (Miss. 1973), Wallace v. State, 607 So. 2d 1184, 1187 (Miss. 1992). It appears that Riddle
is serving the full five years to which he should have originally been sentenced and no more.
¶4. The trial court is afforded the presumption of correctness with the burden lying with the appellant to
show otherwise by demonstrating reversible error. Branch v. State, 347 So. 2d 957, 958 (Miss. 1977).
Riddle's plea agreement papers explicitly state, in his own handwriting, that he understood the sentence
maximum to be five years. Riddle has not been harmed by the judge's initial mistake of allowing Riddle
freedom under supervised probation. Wiilliams v. State, 802 So. 2d 1052, 1061 (¶7)(Miss. Ct. App.
2001). On the contrary, Riddle would have remained free with his sentence fully served had he only been
strong enough to abide by the conditions of his probation.
¶5. Riddle was, however, harmed by the court's improper attempt to re-sentence him as a habitual offender
since the authority to alter his sentence, unless it involves the suspension, ended with the term of court at
which sentence given. Harrigill v. State, 403 So. 2d 867, 869 (Miss. 1981). We reverse in part and
affirm in part. We reverse as to the habitual offender portion of Riddle's sentence and affirm as to the
sentence of five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with credit for all time
served.
¶6. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS REVERSED IN PART AS TO THE RE-SENTENCING AS A
HABITUAL OFFENDER AND IS AFFIRMED AS TO THE REINSTATEMENT OF
APPELLANT'S FIVE YEAR SENTENCE. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED
TO HARRISON COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
