Carl Williams v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CP-02029-COA
CARL WILLIAMS A/K/A CARL E. WILLIAMS
A/K/A SPEEDY
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
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:
APPELLEE
10/18/2007
HON. JAMES T. KITCHENS, JR.
OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
CARL WILLIAMS (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
DISMISSED
APPEAL DISMISSED: 03/31/2009
BEFORE LEE, P.J., GRIFFIS AND BARNES, JJ.
GRIFFIS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Carl Williams appeals the Oktibbeha County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his motion
to reduce his sentence. We find that no right to appeal the circuit court’s order exists; thus,
this Court is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Accordingly, Williams’s appeal is
dismissed.
FACTS
¶2.
Williams pleaded guilty to the sale of cocaine. He was sentenced to serve twelve
years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and he was placed on five
years of post-release supervision. On September 25, 2007, Williams filed a motion for a
reduction/reconsideration of his sentence. In that motion, Williams requested his sentence
be reduced because he had made positive changes in his life including enrolling in a GED
program.
¶3.
An order entered on October 18, 2007, dismissed Williams’s motion to reduce his
sentence. The circuit court found that the motion was not well-taken, and because Williams
was sentenced during a previous term of court, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to
suspend his sentence pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-7-33(1) (Rev.
2004), which states in part: “the court shall not suspend the execution of a sentence of
imprisonment after the defendant shall have begun to serve such sentence.” The order stated
that Williams was under the sole jurisdiction of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
¶4.
Williams filed his notice of appeal on November 8, 2007. In his brief, he presents the
same argument that he presented to the circuit court – his sentence should be reduced
because he does not have a lengthy criminal history, and he has made positive changes in his
life. He also asserts that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5.
A jurisdictional issue presents a question of law and is thereby reviewed under a de
novo standard. Burnette v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 770 So. 2d 948, 950 (¶4) (Miss.
2000).
ANALYSIS
Whether Williams may appeal the circuit court’s order dismissing his motion
2
to reduce his sentence.
¶6.
Williams asks this Court to reverse the circuit court’s dismissal of his motion to
reduce his sentence. The State responds that the dismissal of a motion to reduce a sentence
is not an appealable order; thus, this purported appeal should be dismissed.
¶7.
As this Court has previously stated, “an appeal from a judgment may not be allowed
unless there is a statute authorizing such an appeal.” Smith v. State, 742 So. 2d 1188, 1189
(¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). Further, “there are two primary ways in which a criminal
defendant may challenge a trial court proceeding: (1) a direct appeal from a conviction, or
(2) a proceeding under the Post[-]Conviction Relief Act. An appeal is a matter of statutory
right and not based on any inherent common law or constitutional right.” Id. at (¶6) (quoting
Fleming v. State, 553 So. 2d 505, 506 (Miss. 1989) (superceded by statute)).
¶8.
In Fleming, an appeal was taken from the circuit court’s denial of a motion for
transcripts of sentencing and other court records. Fleming, 553 So. 2d at 505-06. The
supreme court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Fleming did not
directly appeal his conviction or proceed by filing a motion for post-conviction collateral
relief. Id. at 506.
¶9.
Just as in Fleming, Williams pleaded guilty and did not directly appeal his conviction.
Neither did he file a motion under the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief
Act. Following the analysis of Fleming, we do not possess the requisite jurisdiction to
consider Williams’s appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
¶10. THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO OKTIBBEHA COUNTY.
3
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS
AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR. MAXWELL, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
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.