Charles R. Walters v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2004-CP-02176-COA
CHARLES R. WALTERS
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:
10/22/2004
HON. MICHAEL R. EUBANKS
MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
CHARLES R. WALTERS (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: SCOTT STUART
CIVIL - POST- CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE DENIED
APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION - 06/27/2006
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., IRVING AND ROBERTS, JJ.
ROBERTS, J., FOR THE COURT:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
Charles Walters was sentenced to two consecutive four-year mandatory sentences for armed
robbery and attempted armed robbery. On October 12, 2004, Walters filed a document titled as a
“Motion for Reduction of Sentence for Hardship” in the Marion County Circuit Court. Walters noted that,
at the time he filed his motion, he had served four years and seven months of his sentence. Walters asked
the circuit court to consider his time served and his work record and further requested that the circuit court
lift the mandatory status from his sentence so that he could receive time off of his sentences for his good
behavior. Walters attached a letter from the Marion County Supervisors to Governor Ronnie Musgrove
in which the supervisors voiced their opinions of Walters’s rehabilitated status. Walters attached similar
letters from Reverand John De La Fuente, signed petitions from the Marion County Sheriff’s Department,
the Marion County Neighborhood Watch Coordinator, the Marion County Circuit Clerk, and various
citizens of Marion County. Those letters and petitions indicate that Walters was a model prisoner, had
been extremely helpfuland hard working during his incarceration, exhibited good behavior and attitude, and
that the authors felt unequivocally that Walters was fit to reenter society. Walters also indicated that his
family needed his support, financially and otherwise.
¶2.
On October 22, 2004, the circuit court filed an order and found that it lacked jurisdiction to
adjudicate Walters’s motion. Consequently, the circuit court denied Walters’s motion. Aggrieved, Walters
appeals and claims that Section 47-1-15 of the Mississippi Code supports his early release.
ANALYSIS
¶3.
A circuit court has no authority to modify sentences handed down during a prior term of court and,
likewise, lacks authority to suspend sentences after the term of court. Mississippi Com'n of Judicial
Performance v. Russell, 691 So.2d 929, 944 (Miss. 1997). According to the circuit court clerk’s docket
sheet, the circuit court sentenced Walters on May 4, 2000. Walters filed his motion for reduction of
sentence on October 12, 2004. There is no question that the term during which the circuit court sentenced
Walters expired in that four year time period. As such, the circuit court lacked authority to suspend
Walter’s sentence.
¶4.
Walters does not have a constitutional or common law right to appeal to this Court; instead, his
ability to appeal is based entirely on statute. Shanks v. State, 906 So.2d 760 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).
2
“There are two primary ways a criminal defendant may challenge a trial court proceeding: a direct appeal
from conviction under Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-35-101 (Rev.2002) or a proceeding under the
Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act, Mississippi Code Annotated. § 99-39-1 to 99-39-29 (Rev.2000
& Supp.2004).” Id. The circuit clerk’s docket sheet indicates that Walters pled guilty. As such, he is not
entitled to direct review. Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-35-101 (Rev.2002). What is more, even if
we treat Walters’s motion, filed four years after conviction, as a petition for post-conviction collateral relief,
that too would be barred by the three year statute of limitations set forth in Mississippi Code Annotated
§ 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2000). Accordingly, we must dismiss Walters’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
¶5.
THE APPEAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE WALTHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION. ALL
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE,
JJ., CONCUR. SOUTHWICK AND IRVING, JJ., CONCUR IN RESULT ONLY WITHOUT
SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
3
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.