Christopher Gates v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2003-CP-02741-COA
CHRISTOPHER GATES
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
11/14/2003
HON. R. I. PRICHARD, III
LAMAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
CHRISTOPHER GATES (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
AFFIRMED: 06/07/2005
BEFORE LEE, P.J., GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ.
GRIFFIS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Christopher Gates appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. On
appeal, Gates argues that his sentence is illegal since the trial court only revoked his five year probation and
did not impose the remaining balance of his sentence. We find no error and affirm.
¶2.
On June 26, 1998, Christopher Gates pled guiltyto uttering forgery in violation of Mississippi Code
Annotated Section 97-21-49 (Rev. 2000), and was sentenced to serve a term of ten years in the custody
of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and to participate in the Regimented Inmate Discipline
Program (RID). On December 7, 1998, after successful completion of the RID program, the Circuit Court
of Lamar County amended Gates’ sentence and placed him on probation for a period of five years. Gates’
probation was subject to several terms and conditions. ¶3.
On March 18, 2002, the trial court found
that Gates had violated some of the terms and conditions of his probation and ordered that in addition to
the terms and conditions already in place, Gates was to participate in the Marion County Work Program
for nine months. However, Gates continued to violate several of the terms and conditions of his probation,
and thus, on August 1, 2002, the trial court revoked Gates’ probation. Prior to the revocation of his
probation, Gates signed a waiver entitled “Waiver of Right to Revocation Hearing.” By signing this waiver,
Gates waived his right to a probation revocation hearing.
¶4.
Gates filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the trial court. Gates now
appeals to this Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5.
In reviewing a trial court's decision to deny a motion for post-conviction relief, the standard of
review is clear. The trial court's denial will not be reversed absent a finding that the trial court's decision
was clearly erroneous. Smith v. State, 806 So. 2d 1148, 1150 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).
ANALYSIS
¶6.
Gates argues that his sentence is illegal since the trial court only revoked his five year probation and
did not impose the remaining balance of his sentence. Gates claims he did not understand that upon
revocation of his probation, he would have to serve the remaining balance of his sentence. However, the
record shows that Gates voluntarily signed a waiver entitled “Waiver of Right to Revocation Hearing.” The
waiver states:
The above charges have been fully explained to me. I understand that I have an absolute
right to a hearing before the Court to answer the charges. I also understand that my [sic]
signing this waiver, I give up my State and Federal rights to a hearing before the Court, and
that my signature is an admission of the charges contained in the Affidavit of Violation of
Probation. I also understand that by signing this waiver, I have consented to an immediate
2
revocation of my probation by the Circuit Court Judge. After due consideration of all of
the above statements, I have freely and voluntarily signed this waiver without any coercion,
threats, promises or inducements of any kind being made to me.
Thus, Gates clearly waived his right to a probation revocation hearing.
¶7.
Gates asserts that had he known that upon revocation of his probation the remaining portion of his
sentence could be imposed, he would not have signed the waiver. The record shows that Gates tested
positive for marijuana and was terminated from the Marion County Work Program, in violation of his
probation. Therefore, even if Gates had not signed the waiver and a probation revocation hearing was
held, Gates’ probation would still have been revoked. The purpose of a probation revocation hearing is
to determine whether or not probation should be revoked, not to argue or negotiate the amount of time the
petitioner would then have to serve. Probation is a status, not a sentence. Gates’ sentence was determined
upon conviction. Pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 47-7-37 (Rev. 2004), the trial court
had the right to re-impose Gates’ previously suspended sentence upon revocation of his probation. Brown
v. State, 872 So. 2d 96, 100 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). Upon review, we find that the trial court was
correct in denying Gates’ motion for post-conviction relief. Therefore, we find no error.
¶8.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAMAR COUNTY DENYING
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL
ARE ASSESSED TO LAMAR COUNTY.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER, BARNES
AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
3
4
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.
