Jamie Steele v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CP-00667-COA
JAMIE STEELE A/K/A JAMIE L. STEELE
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLEE
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
3/8/2002
HON. JOSEPH H. LOPER, JR.
ATTALA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JAMIE STEELE (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN
DOUG EVANS
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIAL OF MOTION FOR SENTENCE
CLARIFICATION POST-CONVICTION
AFFIRMED - 05/13/2003
BEFORE MCMILLIN, C.J., LEE AND IRVING, JJ.
LEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
¶1.
Jamie Steele pled guilty in the Attala County Circuit Court to felony shoplifting and was sentenced
on March 6, 2001, to serve three years and six months in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections, with one year to serve and two years, six months on post-release supervision. On March 19,
2001, the circuit judge found that, by committing this crime, Steele violated the terms of his post-release
supervision in an earlier shoplifting charge. Two years before, on March 1, 1999, Steele pled guilty to
shoplifting and received three years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with seven
months to serve and two years, five months on post-release supervision. The circuit judge then entered
an order, dated March 19, 2001, revoking Steele's post-release supervision, ordering Steele to serve the
two years, five months from the earlier charge.
¶2.
Steele then filed a motion for sentence clarification post-conviction in the Attala County Circuit
Court on March 4, 2002, which was denied on March 8, 2002. On March 22, 2002, Steele filed a motion
to reconsider the denial of his post-conviction relief, which was again denied on March 26, 2002. Steele
then perfected his appeal to this Court asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction
and that his probation was unlawfully revoked.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
¶3.
In reviewing a trial court's denial of post-conviction relief, our standard of review is well stated.
We will not disturb the trial court's factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. Pace v.
State, 770 So. 2d 1052 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). However, where questions of law are raised, the
applicable standard of review is de novo. Id.
I. DID SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE EXIST TO SUPPORT STEELE'S CONVICTION?
¶4.
With his first issue, Steele argues that, although he pled guilty, the evidence was insufficient to
convict him. In Swift v. State, 815 So. 2d 1230 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001), this Court stated:
The law is well settled that when properly entered and accepted, "[a] guilty plea operates
to waive the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination, the right to confront and
cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses, the right to a jury trial and the right that the
prosecution prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt."
2
Swift, 815 So. 2d at (¶13). Since Steele pled guilty, he waived his opportunity for a jury to review the
sufficiency of evidence in his case; thus, we decline to review as well.
II. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN REVOKING STEELE'S POST-RELEASE
SUPERVISION?
¶5.
With his other issue, Steele contends that his post-release supervision was unlawfully revoked.
Although Steele mentions many arguments as to why this was unlawful, his main claim is that the revocation
of his post-release supervision violated the plea agreement which stated that he would be released after one
year. What Steele fails to recognize is that the plea agreement in the most recent shoplifting charge had
nothing to do with the earlier shoplifting charge. In a comprehensive order denying Steele relief, the circuit
judge found that "under the terms of the sentence, if Steele violated the law at any time during the period
of post-release supervision, his post-release supervision could be revoked and the two years and five
months sentence imposed." According to Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-34 (2) (Supp. 2002), "failure to
successfully abide by the terms and conditions shall be grounds to terminate the period of post-release
supervision and to recommit the defendant to the correctional facility from which he was previously
released."
¶6.
We can find no error in the lower court's denial of Steele's motion for post-conviction relief; thus,
we affirm.
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE ATTALA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE TAXED TO
ATTALA COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, IRVING,
MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
3
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.
