Bridgette M. Sanford a/k/a Bridgette Michelle Sanford v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2011-CP-00389-COA
BRIDGETTE M. SANFORD A/K/A BRIDGETTE
MICHELLE SANFORD
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:
APPELLEE
02/03/2011
HON. ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN
DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
BRIDGETTE M. SANFORD (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISMISSED
REVERSED AND REMANDED –
08/07/2012
09/18/2012: DENIED; REVERSED AND
RENDERED – 08/27/2013
MANDATE ISSUED:
EN BANC.
IRVING, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
MODIFIED OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
¶1.
The case is before us on a motion for rehearing; the motion is denied, and the original
opinion is withdrawn and substituted with this opinion.
¶2.
On December 15, 2008, the DeSoto County Circuit Court revoked Bridgette M.
Sanford’s post-release supervision (PRS) based on her commission of new crimes and her
failure to pay fines and court costs. On November 24, 2010, Sanford filed a motion for postconviction relief (PCR), which the circuit court dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, Sanford
appeals and raises several issues. However, Sanford’s issues all relate to the central issue of
whether the circuit court erred in revoking her PRS.
FACTS
¶3.
On September 3, 2004, Sanford pleaded guilty to uttering a forgery in Cause No.
2004-666RD. The circuit court sentenced Sanford to eight years to serve and seven years of
non-reporting PRS. Sanford later filed a PCR motion, which is not the subject of this appeal,
arguing that her sentence was illegal. The circuit court entered an amended sentencing order,
reducing the period of PRS from seven years to two years of non-reporting PRS.1
1
Mississippi Code Annotated 97-21-33 (Rev. 2006) provides:
Persons convicted of forgery shall be punished by imprisonment in the
Penitentiary for a term of not less than two (2) years nor more than ten (10)
years, or by a fine of not more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), or
both; provided, however, that when the amount of value involved is less than
Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) in lieu of the punishment above provided for,
the person convicted may be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for
a term of not more than six (6) months, or by a fine of not more than One
Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or both, within the discretion of the court.
Additionally, Mississippi Code Annotated 47-7-34(1) (Rev. 2011) provides, in pertinent
part:
When a court imposes a sentence upon a conviction for any felony committed
after June 30, 1995, the court, in addition to any other punishment imposed if
the other punishment includes a term of incarceration in a state or local
correctional facility, may impose a term of post-release supervision. However,
the total number of years of incarceration plus the total number of years of
post-release supervision shall not exceed the maximum sentence authorized to
2
¶4.
On September 20, 2004, Sanford pleaded guilty to uttering a forgery in Cause Nos.
2004-706RD, 2004-721RD, and 2004-731RD. For each cause number, the circuit court
sentenced Sanford to three years of PRS, non-reporting, but it did not impose a period of
incarceration. The circuit court ordered the PRS for the conviction in each of these cause
numbers to run consecutively to each other and to the sentence imposed in Cause No. 2004666RD.
¶5.
Sanford was released from custody on June 28, 2007. On June 24, 2008, Sanford
committed new crimes, conspiracy to sell and selling counterfeit instruments. In response,
the circuit court revoked Sanford’s two years of PRS in Cause No. 2004-666RD.
Additionally, the court revoked Sanford’s PRS in Cause Nos. 2004-706RD, 2004-721RD,
and 2004-731RD. The court ordered Sanford to serve three years for Cause No. 2004706RD, three years for Cause No. 2004-731RD, and one day for Cause No. 2004-721RD.
The circuit court ordered the sentences to run consecutively to the sentence in Cause No.
2004-666RD and consecutively to each other, for a total sentence of eight years and one day.
¶6.
Additional facts, as necessary, will be related in our analysis and discussion of the
issue.
be imposed by law for the felony committed.
(Emphasis added). As the circuit court noted in its order, the maximum penalty for uttering
a forgery was fifteen years where the amount involved was $100 or more. However, in
2003, the Legislature amended section 97-21-33 and reduced the maximum sentence to ten
years where the amount involved was $500 or more. Under the amended statute, Sanford’s
period of incarceration (eight years) plus the period of post-release supervision (seven years)
exceeded the maximum sentence allowed for uttering a forgery (ten years).
3
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE
¶7.
In her PCR motion, Sanford challenges the revocation of her PRS in Cause Nos. 2004-
706RD, 2004-721RD, and 2004-731RD. Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-9(2)
(Supp. 2011) provides that a PCR motion “shall be limited to the assertion of a claim for
relief against one . . . judgment only. If a petitioner desires to attack the validity of other
judgments under which he is in custody, he shall do so by separate motions.”
¶8.
Sanford’s apparent violation of the procedural requirements set forth in section 99-39-
9(2) should not be fatal in this case, especially where the issues she raises relate to 2004706RD, 2004-721RD, and 2004-731RD. Furthermore, in its brief, the State urges this Court
to address the merits of Sanford’s PCR motion despite the procedural violation. This Court
has previously addressed a PCR motion challenging multiple judgments where: (1) the
causes were interrelated; (2) the issues raised concerned both causes; (3) the circuit court
entertained the motion and reached the merits of the issues raised; and (4) the State made no
issue of the fact that the motion attacked two judgments. See Nichols v. State, 955 So. 2d
962, 966 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). As such, we will address the merits of the claims in
Sanford’s PCR motion even though she challenges multiple judgments.
¶9.
Sanford contends that the circuit court erred in revoking her PRS in Cause Nos. 2004-
706RD, 2004-721RD, and 2004-731RD because, at the time that she committed the new
crimes, she was still on PRS for Cause No. 2004-666RD and had yet to begin her PRS in
Cause Nos. 2004-706RD, 2004-721RD, and 2004-731RD. We agree. In Shinn v. State, 74
So. 3d 901, 902 (¶2) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011), Jimmy Shinn was indicted for multiple counts
4
of uttering a forgery. Shinn agreed to plead guilty to Counts I and II, and the State agreed
to dismiss the remaining counts. Id. The circuit court sentenced Shinn to four years of
incarceration followed by five years of PRS for Count I. Id. at (¶3). The court imposed an
identical sentence for Count II and made an oral pronouncement that the sentences were to
run consecutively. Id. However, the sentencing orders for Counts I and II were silent as to
“whether the sentences were concurrent or consecutive to one another.” Id. During the first
year of Shinn’s PRS, he violated the conditions of his PRS. Id. at 903 (¶4). In response, the
circuit court revoked Shinn’s PRS as to both Counts I and II. Id.
¶10.
Shinn’s sole issue on appeal related to whether his sentences were to run
consecutively or concurrently. Id. at (¶6). However, this Court explained that if Shinn’s
sentences were ordered to run consecutively, “Shinn could not have been serving his fiveyear term of PRS on Count II when he violated the conditions of the PRS under Count I.”
Id. at 907 (¶19). Following Shinn’s release from custody, he began his first five-year term
of PRS. Id. “Shinn’s PRS sentence on Count II would not have begun to run until Shinn had
completed his five years of PRS on Count I . . . .” Id. Therefore, the circuit court could not
“revoke Shinn’s PRS sentence on Count II since he was not serving that portion of his
sentence at the time he violated the conditions of the PRS under Count I.” Id.
¶11.
This is precisely Sanford’s situation. At the time that Sanford’s PRS was revoked, she
was serving the two years of PRS for Cause No. 2004-666RD. Since she had not begun the
PRS for Cause Nos. 2004-706RD, 2004-721RD, and 2004-731RD, the circuit court erred in
revoking her PRS for those cause numbers. Therefore, we reverse and render the revocation
5
of the post-release sentences given to her in Cause Nos. 2004-706RD, 2004-721RD, and
2004-731RD.
¶12. THE JUDGMENT OF THE DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS REVERSED
AND RENDERED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO DESOTO
COUNTY.
LEE, C.J., GRIFFIS, P.J., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON,
MAXWELL, FAIR, AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR.
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.