James Thomas Eastman v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2004-CP-00877-COA
JAMES THOMAS EASTMAN A/K/A JAMES T.
EASTMAN
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
4/6/2004
HON. THOMAS J. GARDNER, III
MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JAMES THOMAS EASTMAN (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED.
REVERSE AND RENDER - 08/23/2005
BEFORE KING, C.J., MYERS AND ISHEE, JJ.
MYERS, J., FOR THE COURT:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶1.
This case presents a rather perplexing sequence of events. On July 8, 1994, James Thomas
Eastman pled guilty to the crimes of burglary and larceny, and uttering a forgery. As a result, Eastman was
sentenced under Count I, burglary and larceny, to a term of ten years imprisonment and was recommended
for admission to the RID program. Eastman was further sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment, with the
full term suspended, for the charges contained in Count II of the indictment, uttering a forgery. The two
sentences were to run concurrently. Further, Eastman was to pay restitution and court costs.
¶2.
On July 10, 1995, after successful completion of the RID program, Eastman was placed on five
years supervised probation. Eastman’s probation was revoked on December 4, 1995, for failure to
complete drug and alcohol treatment and for failure to live at liberty without violating any laws. As a result,
Eastman was sentenced to the shock probation program at the Mississippi Department of Corrections and
the court reserved the right of judicial review from the date which Eastman was received to the shock
probation program.
¶3.
On September 11, 1996, Eastman’s sentence was again suspended and he was once again placed
on supervised probation for a period of five years. Just over one year later, on September 26, 1997,
Eastman’s probation was again revoked for failure to live at liberty without violating any laws, failing to
report to his probation officer as directed, failing to pay restitutionas ordered, failing to pay supervision fees
as ordered, and for failing to abstain from the use of alcohol and drugs. At the revocation hearing, the State
petitioned the court to impose the suspended sentence of fifteen years, which was imposed pursuant to
Count II of the indictment. The court found the State’s motion to be well taken. Rather than imposing the
fifteen year sentence as originally structured, the court imposed a ten year sentence, suspended all ten years
of the sentence, and placed Eastman under post-release supervision for a period of three years.
¶4.
The sentence as imposed by the September 26, 1997 order differed from the sentence as originally
structured, and is thus, the crux of this appeal. As stated previously, the original fifteen year sentence was
suspended and was to run concurrent to the ten year sentence received under Count I of the indictment.
Thus, if both sentences were imposed, Eastman could receive a maximum of fifteen years imprisonment.
The sentence as amended by the September 26, 1997 order imposed three years of post-release
supervision which were to run consecutive to Eastman’s sentence under Count I but would upon
revocation cause Eastman to be sentenced to ten years imprisonment. Thus, under the revised sentence,
2
if both sentences were imposed, Eastman could receive a maximum of twenty years imprisonment.
Eastman’s potential sentencing was increased by five years imprisonment.
¶5.
On June 13, 2002, while subject to the three years of supervised probation imposed under Count
II, Eastman yet again violated the terms of his probation by failing to live at liberty without violating any law
and by failing to abstain from the use of alcohol and drugs. As a result of his inability to conduct himself
in accordance with the law, Eastman’s probation was again revoked and the ten year suspended sentence
under Count II of the indictment was imposed.
¶6.
On December 4, 2002, Eastman filed his petition for post-conviction relief which was dismissed
as moot on May 29, 2003, as Eastman had been released from prison on May 10, 2003, upon an
administrative error of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Eastman was then re-incarcerated in
September 2003 to serve the remaining portion of his ten year sentence under Count II, uttering a forgery.
On October 29, 2003, Eastman filed a motion to reinstate his petition for post-conviction relief, which was
granted on February 26, 2004. On April 6, 2004, the trial court denied Eastman’s petition for postconviction relief, holding that Eastman was unaffected by the change, as the sentence did not begin until it
was imposed, and it was imposed due to a new violation of the law.
¶7.
Aggrieved by the trial court’s ruling, Eastman appeals raising four issues, which are closely
intertwined and have therefore been recast as the following single issue:
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY RESTRUCTURING THE SENTENCE
IMPOSED FROM CONCURRENT TO CONSECUTIVE, THEREBY INCREASING THE
TOTAL TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED AND SUBJECTING HIM TO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY.
¶8.
Finding that the trial court erred in restructuring Eastman’s sentence, we reverse and remand
the trial court’s ruling.
3
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY RESTRUCTURING THE SENTENCE IMPOSED
FROM CONCURRENT TO CONSECUTIVE, THEREBY INCREASING THE TOTAL TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED AND SUBJECTING HIM TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
DISCUSSION
¶9.
As stated previously, Eastman originally received ten years imprisonment and a fifteen year
suspended sentence for burglary and larceny and for uttering a forgery. The two sentences were to run
concurrently, resulting in a fifteen year maximum sentence should both sentences be imposed. After failing
several times to conduct himself within the terms of his probation, Eastman’s sentence was restructured to
change the original concurrent fifteen year sentence received under Count II of the indictment to a
consecutive ten year sentence. By restructuring Eastman’s sentence, he now faces a total of twenty years
imprisonment rather than the fifteen year maximum carried by the initial sentence.
¶10.
Eastman argues that by restructuring his sentence the trial court violated Mississippi Code
Annotated §§ 47-7-33 and 47-7-34 (Rev. 2004), as well as 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Further, Eastman
argues that the altered sentence subjected him to double jeopardy, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
We agree that the court was able to enforce the terms of the original sentence; however, the court acted
improperly by amending the initial sentence, as our caselaw has long held such alterations are improper.
¶11.
The Mississippi Supreme Court first addressed this issue in Leonard v. State, 271 So. 2d 445
(Miss. 1973). The Leonard decision is factually similar to the case sub judice. Leonard pled guilty to two
indictments accusing him of forgery and uttering a forgery. As a result, Leonard was sentenced to two
years for each crime, and the sentences were to run consecutively, for a total of four years imprisonment.
Leonard’s sentences were suspended and he was put on probation for the four year period. The next year,
Leonard violated his probation by (1) being at a “juke joint,” (2) being an accessory after the fact to
4
robbery and murder, and (3) possession of “dope.” As a result, his probation was revoked and he was
sentenced to ten years imprisonment for each count. Leonard’s sentences were to run consecutively, for
a total incarceration period of twenty years, thus increasing his sentence five-fold.
¶12.
The Leonard decision was the first time that this issue was presented to our state courts and as
such was presented with the two prevalent theories of interpretation for this issue. Leonard argued that
Mississippi’s probation statute should be construed in a similar manner as Kentucky, which had a probation
statute constructed similarly to Mississippi’s. New Jersey also had a probation statute which was very
similar to Mississippi’s but had been interpreted in an alternate fashion. As such, the State argued that
Mississippi should embrace the theory followed in New Jersey. Although the Kentucky and New Jersey
statutes were almost identical, the interpretations given by each state were polar opposites. In the
Kentucky case of Hord v. Com., 450 S.W.2d 530 (Ky. 1970), the Kentucky Supreme Court held that
re-sentencing which imposed a greater sentence would be both violative of the probation statute as well
as unconstitutional. The competing theory embraced by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the case of
Application of White, 114 A.2d 261 (N.J. 1955), held that the sentencing judge had sufficient authority
to grant a greater sentence upon probation revocation. The Mississippi Supreme Court found Kentucky’s
caselaw to provide the more sound approach and adopted such as our standard. Thus, our supreme court
adopted the legal theory “that once a circuit or county court exercises its option to impose a definite
sentence it cannot subsequently set that sentence aside and impose a greater sentence.” Leonard, 271 So.
2d at 447. This legal principle remains as the standard in our jurisprudence. See Riddle v. State, 816 So.
2d 454 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002); Johnson v. State, 753 So. 2d 449 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
5
¶13.
As such, the circuit court erred in restructuring Eastman’s sentence, and therefore, the twenty year
sentence as altered on September 26, 1997 is set aside and the original fifteen year sentence is hereby
reinstated.
¶14. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONROE COUNTY DENYING
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS REVERSED AND RENDERED. ALL COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO MONROE COUNTY.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND
ISHEE, JJ. CONCUR. IRVING, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
6
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.
