Christopher v. Hobbs
Annotate this CaseAppellant Lamarcus Christopher entered a plea of guilty to various drug offenses. Six months later, Appellant pled guilty to possession of a firearm by certain persons. More than a year later, the circuit court entered two amended judgments on each of the two cases, altering only the name of the offenses to include that Appellant was charged "as habitual." Appellant's sentences were not altered in either amendment. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing (1) he had not been properly notified that he was being charged as a habitual offender, (2) the amended judgment conflicted with the sentence as ordered in open court where he was not pronounced a habitual offender, and (3) but for this misrepresentation, he would not have pled guilty to the charges. The circuit court denied Appellant's petition with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court was correct to deny Appellant's petition because he made neither a claim that his judgment-and-commitment order was invalid on its face nor a claim that the sentencing court was without jurisdiction.
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.