Dave Houston, Jr. v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CP-00365-COA
DAVE HOUSTON, JR. AND PAUL D. HOUSTON,
A/K/A DONNELL
APPELLANTS
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
2/4/2002
HON. LARRY O. LEWIS
COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
DAVE HOUSTON, JR. (PRO SE)
PAUL D. HOUSTON (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: SCOTT STUART
LAURENCE Y. MELLEN
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
SENTENCE DENIED.
AFFIRMED - 03/18/2003
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., LEE AND MYERS, JJ.
LEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Brothers Dave and Paul Houston were teenagers in August 1996 when they held up a Subway
restaurant. Both subsequently pled guilty to charges of armed robbery and kidnaping. Dave was sentenced
to sixteen years, with eleven years to serve and five years suspended, and Paul was sentenced to fifteen
years with ten years to serve and five suspended. The Houstons filed a joint motion for reconsideration
of sentence in February 2002, and the motion was denied. In the motion, the Houstons claimed that,
according to their sentencing order, they were entitled to have their sentences reduced, terminated or
reconsidered due to language which states that the last five years of their sentences would be suspended
"until the Court in term time, or the Judge in vacation, shall alter, extend, terminate or direct the enforcement
of the above sentence." In denying the motion, the judge explained:
The phrase "alter, extend, terminate, or direct the enforcement of the above sentence"
refers to this Court's power to require the Defendants/Movants to serve all or part of the
suspended portions of their sentences in the physical custody of the Mississippi
Department of Correction in the event that they might violate the conditions set by their
Sentencing Orders. This phrase has no relevance to the portion of their Sentencing Orders
requiring them to serve the first eleven (11) years of their sixteen (16) years [sic] sentences
in the physical custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
¶2.
First, we find that review of the Houstons's motion for reconsideration of sentence falls under Miss.
Code Ann. § 99-39-5 concerning post-conviction relief and, thus, is barred by the three-year statute of
limitations. Procedural bar notwithstanding, we also find that the Houstons were not entitled to an
evidentiary hearing as their issue did not involve questions of fact, but mere interpretation of their sentencing
order. See Williams v. State, 752 So. 2d 410 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
¶3.
As the trial judge pointed out, the Houstons fail to recognize that the provision at issue applies to
conditions regarding suspension of their sentences and does not concern their alleged right to have the judge
review and possibly alter or terminate their sentences. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's
decision on this issue.
¶4.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS ARE ASSESSED TO
COAHOMA COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, IRVING,
MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
2
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.