Glenn Allen Ford v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-KA-00728-COA
GLENN ALLEN FORD
APPELLANT
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:
APPELLEE
3/29/2002
HON. R. I. PRICHARD, III
LAMAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
LESLIE D. ROUSSELL
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. GLENN WATTS
CLAIBORNE MCDONALD
CRIMINAL - FELONY
COUNT II - POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULED II
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, SENTENCED TO
SERVE A TERM OF EIGHT YEARS WITH TWO
SUSPENDED IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO
THE SENTENCE NOW BEING SERVED IN
FEDERAL CUSTODY, AND TO PAY A FINE OF
$20,000.
AFFIRMED - 04/29/2003
BEFORE KING, P.J., THOMAS, MYERS AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
THOMAS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Glenn Allen Ford pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, and was
sentenced to a term of eight years with two suspended and to pay a $20,000 fine by the Circuit Court of
Lamar County. Aggrieved, he asserts the following issue on appeal:
I.
WHETHER THE SENTENCE IN THIS CASE WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO
THE OFFENSE PLED TO AND/OR WHETHER THE SENTENCE IN THIS CASE
WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO SIMILAR CRIMES.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
Glenn Allen Ford was arrested by the narcotics task force and charged with possession of 1.9
grams of methamphetamine as well as precursor chemicals with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.
Ford's pickup was seized by the authorities and civil forfeiture proceedings were initiated against the truck.
The forfeiture proceeding was stayed until conclusion of the criminal proceeding against Ford.
¶3.
With the assistance of counsel, a plea bargain agreement was reached wherein Ford agreed to
plead guilty to possession of 1.9 grams of methamphetamine and the State agreed to dismiss the charge of
possession of precursor chemicals with intent to manufacture. No agreement was reached as to time to
be served or fine to be paid. In his petition to enter a guilty plea, Ford acknowledged knowing that the
range for a sentence was from two to eight years along with a fine of up to $50,000. Ford also
acknowledged having previous convictions in federal court for possession of a controlled substance.
¶4.
Ford pled guilty to possession on March 18, 2002, in Lamar County Circuit Court. The trial court
explained the constitutional rights Ford was waiving with his plea, including his right against selfincrimination and his right to a jury trial. Ford acknowledged understanding the rights he was waiving as
well as again acknowledging the sentencing range and maximum fine for his offense. After further
questioning Ford, the trial court found that his plea was voluntarily and intelligently entered. At a separate
2
sentencing hearing, Ford was sentenced to eight years with two years suspended, pay a $20,000 fine, and
complete a drug rehabilitation program. The trial court ordered Ford's truck sold and the proceeds applied
to his fine.
I.
WAS THE SENTENCE IN THIS CASE DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE OFFENSE
PLED TO AND/OR WAS THE SENTENCE IN THIS CASE DISPROPORTIONATE
TO SIMILAR CRIMES?
¶5.
Ford asserts that his sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and that it is
disproportionate to similarly situated defendants in the same circuit court district as well as in the rest of the
State of Mississippi. Ford cites Williams v. State, 757 So. 2d 953 (Miss. 1999), in support of his
argument, in which the Mississippi Supreme Court states:
This Court will review a sentence where it is alleged that the penalty imposed is
disproportionate to the crime charged. The factors to consider when conducting a
proportionality analysis include (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the
penalty; (2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (3) the
sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.
Id. at 957 (¶21)(citing Fleming v. State, 604 So. 2d 280, 302-03 (Miss. 1992); Solem v. Helm, 463
U.S. 277, 292 (1983)). Although the test set forth is indeed correct, Ford fails to note the language
immediately preceding the above quote from Williams. "The general rule is that a sentence cannot be
disturbed on appeal so long as it does not exceed the maximum term allowed by statute." Williams, 757
So. 2d at 957 (¶21)(citing Fleming, 604 So. 2d 280 at 302).
¶6.
The statute under which Ford was sentenced, Miss. Code. Ann. § 41-29-139, provides penalties
for possession of controlled substances including methamphetamine and states that anyone convicted of
possession of more than one-tenth gram but less than two grams shall be sentenced to imprisonment for
not less than two years nor more than eight years and fined not more than $50,000. Ford's sentence of eight
3
years with two suspended and fine of $20,000 is well within the maximum limits set by the applicable
statute.
¶7.
Although Ford claims that his sentence is disproportionate to others in Lamar County, the record
contains no information regarding the sentences of other similarly situated defendants, either in Lamar
County or in the State of Mississippi. Ford attempts to use the federal sentencing guidelines to show that
his sentence was too harsh, but it should be noted that Ford was sentenced under state jurisdiction and
Mississippi has not adopted the federal guidelines. They are therefore irrelevant for offenses under
exclusive state jurisdiction. Similarly, there is no information included regarding the separate civil forfeiture
proceedings held in connection with selling Ford's truck. The burden is on the appellant to include
whatever is needed in support of his arguments. This Court must "decide each case by the facts shown in
the record, not assertions in the brief, however sincere counsel may be in those assertions." Mason v.
State, 440 So. 2d 318, 319 (Miss. 1983).
¶8.
Ford pled guilty to possession of 1.9 grams of methamphetamine while having prior convictions for
possession of a controlled substance. He was convicted of violating federal controlled substance laws
involving methamphetamine for which he was serving 29 months at the time of his sentencing hearing. Ford
acknowledged knowing the range of sentence he could receive. He knew that the prosecution was
dropping a charge in return for his guilty plea. Having been sentenced well within the statutory maximum
for his particular offense, this is not cruel and unusual punishment. Barnwell v. State, 567 So. 2d 215,
221-22 (Miss. 1990). This issue is without merit.
¶9.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAMAR COUNTY OF
POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCE OF
EIGHT YEARS WITH SIX YEARS TO SERVE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE
NOW BEING SERVED IN FEDERAL CUSTODY, AND TWO YEARS SUSPENDED AND
4
FINE OF $20,000 IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, LEE, IRVING,
MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
5
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.
