Ollie Hampton v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 97-CA-00927 COA
OLLIE HAMPTON
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
07/17/97
TRIAL JUDGE:
HON. LAMAR PICKARD
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
PRO SE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
ALEXANDER MARTIN
NATURE OF THE CASE:
CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF FOR REDUCTION OF
SENTENCE DENIED
DISPOSITION:
AFFIRMED - 12/08/98
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
12/29/98
BEFORE McMILLIN, P.J., COLEMAN, AND PAYNE, JJ.
PAYNE, J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
¶1. This case is on appeal from the denial of the appellant's petition for post-conviction relief by the Circuit
Court of Copiah County. The circuit court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Upon review of Hampton's original pleadings and his briefs in support of his appeal, we affirm the circuit
court's dismissal of the claim.
FACTS
¶2. Hampton pled guilty to one count of robbery and received an eight year suspended sentence and five
years probation plus a $1,000 fine and court costs. Subsequently, his probation was revoked for, inter
alia, commission of a new crime of strong armed robbery, and he was ordered to serve the original
sentence of eight years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Hampton filed his
petition for post-conviction relief with the Copiah County Circuit Court seeking a reduction in his sentence.
The circuit court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Hampton then perfected
this appeal. Upon reviewing the appellant's original pleadings and his briefs filed with regard to this appeal,
we affirm the dismissal of the petition.
THE ORIGINAL PCR
¶3. In his petition, Hampton alleged that his sentence was excessive and sought a reduction thereof and
alleged that his probation was improperly revoked. Upon considering the petition, the circuit court
dismissed the same without a hearing.
¶4. On appeal we are limited to a review of the judgment of the court from which the appeal is taken. In this
case, the circuit court properly found that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief Hampton sought. A court
has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion to amend an original sentence once it has become final. Denton v.
Maples, 394 So. 2d 895 (Miss. 1981); Harrigill v. State, 403 So. 2d 867 (Miss. 1981). After the term
of court during which the defendant was sentenced has passed, "the circuit judge's sole authority in the case
was to determine whether or not all or a portion of the original suspended sentence should be revoked."
Campbell v. State, 430 So. 2d 851, 853 (Miss. 1983). See also Lewis v. State, 414 So. 2d 435 (Miss.
1982).
ISSUES RAISED BY HAMPTON
¶5. On appeal, Hampton has raised numerous other issues, none of which were specifically raised in the
circuit court. We address them with the understanding that we are under no obligation to do so.
¶6. Hampton alleges that the circuit court erred in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Supp. 1998) provides for such disposition of petition for post conviction
relief "[i]f it appears from the face of the motion . . . that the movant is not entitled to any relief . . . ." There
is no merit to Hampton's argument that he was denied the right to be heard under the Fourteenth
Amendment and Mississippi Constitution, art. 3, § 26(2). His contention that his right to be heard at the
probation hearing is not supported by the record. It is clear that he was afforded the right to be heard based
on his dialogue with the circuit judge. There is no merit to this argument.
¶7. Next, Hampton alleges that his sentence was excessive. The sentence imposed by the circuit court was
within the statutory limits of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-75 (Supp. 1998) and not disproportionate under
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983). The sentence was considerably less than the fifteen year sentence
which could have been imposed. Hampton was originally given a suspended sentence and the opportunity
not to serve any time. There is no merit to his arguments that the court failed to consider that he was a first
time offender.
¶8. Hampton's contention that his probation was improperly revoked also is without merit. Miss. Code
Ann. § 47-7-37 (Supp. 1998) sets forth the requirements for probation revocation and has been declared
constitutional by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Berdin v. State, 648 So. 2d 73, 76 (Miss. 1994) and
Riely v. State, 562 So. 2d 1206, 1210 (Miss. 1990). Our review of the record of the revocation
demonstrates that due process was afforded Hampton in this hearing.¶9. Hampton further argues that the
court showed bias and prejudice by not ordering alcohol and drug treatment as part of his initial sentence. It
is well settled that sentencing matters are within the trial judge's sound discretion and will not be disturbed
unless outside the statutory parameters. Stromas v. State, 618 So. 2d 116, 122 (Miss. 1993). Hampton
had an admitted alcohol problem. At the initial sentencing, the trial court admonished him not to drink while
he was on probation. Hampton chose to violate that admonition which ultimately resulted in his probation's
being revoked. The trial court's ordering of alcohol and drug treatment on revocation of Hampton's
probation was appropriate and in the best interest of Hampton. His assertions in this regard are overruled.
¶10. Finally, Hampton asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at both his plea hearing and
his revocation hearing. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) is controlling on the issue of
effective assistance of counsel. Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance at his plea hearing, we find this
to be without merit. The transcript sets forth Hampton's discussion with the trial court, and it is clear that he
was aware of the consequences of his plea. Hampton has failed to demonstrate how the performance of his
counsel was so deficient and prejudicial that but for the attorney's conduct, he would not have entered the
plea. Also, regarding the claim of ineffective assistance at his revocation hearing, we, too, find this to be
without merit. Hampton carried on an apparently lucid dialogue with the court regarding the particulars of
the probation violation and fully understood the consequences of his violating his probation. Hampton's
suggestion that his attorney erred in not objecting to the trial court's order that he participate in alcohol and
drug treatment is without merit, and we find that there was nothing objectionable in the trial court's action in
this regard.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COPIAH COUNTY DENYING POST
CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE TAXED TO
COPIAH COUNTY.
BRIDGES, C.J., McMILLIN AND THOMAS, P.JJ., COLEMAN, DIAZ, HERRING,
HINKEBEIN, KING, AND SOUTHWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
