Marlon Israel Morris v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2004-CP-01052-COA
MARLON ISRAEL MORRIS
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLEE
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:
MANDATE ISSUED:
4/6/2004
HON. ROBERT P. KREBS
JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
MARLON ISRAEL MORRIS (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
AFFIRMED: 07/26/2005
BEFORE BRIDGES, P.J., GRIFFIS AND BARNES, JJ.
GRIFFIS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Marlon Israel Morris pled guilty to armed robbery. He was sentenced to serve a term of ten years
in the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Morris filed a motion for post-conviction relief that was
denied. On appeal, Morris asserts that the State breached its agreement with him to recommend a
sentence of twelve years with six suspended. We affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶2.
In reviewing a trial court’s decision to deny a motion for post-conviction relief, the standard of
review is clear. The trial court’s denial will not be reversed absent a finding that the trial court’s decision
was clearly erroneous. Smith v. State, 806 So. 2d 1148, 1150 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).
ANALYSIS
¶3.
Morris and the prosecution reached a plea agreement. In return for a guilty plea, the State agreed
that it would recommend a twelve-year sentence with only six years to serve. Morris argues that the State
breached this agreement when the trial court sentenced him to serve ten years rather than six.
¶4.
At the outset, we recognize that the trial court has full discretion within the sentencing law regardless
of a plea agreement. Martin v. State, 635 So. 2d 1352, 1356 (Miss. 1994). Morris is indeed correct
that the State agreed to recommend that he serve six years. The transcript of the guilty plea is clear, and
the State held to its end of the bargain. When asked if the State had any recommendations, the prosecutor
merely referred to the recommendation in the plea agreement and reminded the trial court that the minimum
sentence for armed robbery was three years. The State vouched for Morris’ good character and admitted
that his involvement in these criminal activities was surprising. Thus, we find that the record clearly belies
Morris’ allegation. Ford v. State, 708 So. 2d 73, 76-77 (¶¶16-17) (Miss. 1998).
¶5.
The trialcourt ultimately decided Morris’ sentence. The judge thoroughly questioned Morris about
his understanding of the possible sentence. The following colloquy took place:
THE COURT: Do you want to plead guilty to these charges? Mr. Morris?
Morris:
Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: Have each of you been told that the State will make some type of
recommendation as to a sentence in your case?
Morris:
Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: What do you think the State will recommend?
Morris:
Twelve years, six to serve, six suspended.
THE COURT: Okay. It has here twelve years in the Mississippi Department of
Corrections on each indictment. Those sentences would run concurrently,
2
or at the same time. Six of those years would be suspended and you
would be ordered to serve six years, which would be without parole. Do
you understand that about an armed robbery charge; you’d have to serve
every day of your sentence? Do you understand that?
Morris:
¶6.
Yes, ma’am.
After some discussion and clarification as to the fines to be paid in restitution, the discussion
continued:
THE COURT: Is that what the State is recommending?
Ms. Hasbrouck:
¶7.
Yes, it is, Your Honor.
This was followed by a detailed account of the evidence against Morris. The court then asked
whether Morris was aware that the court did not have to accept the State’s recommendation. Morris
answered in the affirmative. The trial court then explained the possible sentences, and the following
discussion took place:
THE COURT: But you understand I don’t have to accept this recommendation that’s
been made by the State? Do you understand that?
Morris:
Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: I’ve gone over with each one of you your backgrounds; you know the
crimes you’re charged with committing are three armed robberies; you
know the maximum punishments for those crimes; you know that you’re
waiving all your constitutional rights by pleading guilty. You know what
the State will recommend, you know I do not have to accept that
recommendation and can sentence you up to the maximum provided by
law. Do each of you understand that?
Morris:
Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: Knowing all of this, do each one of you still want to plead guilty to these
charges?
Morris:
Yes, ma’am.
3
¶8.
The transcript reveals that the trial court went to great lengths to ensure that Morris was fully
informed that the State’s recommendation was not binding. Morris’ plea petition stated, “Do you
understand that the court is not bound by any recommendation the State may make, but the court will
determine what your sentence shall be, and that sentence could be the maximum sentence provided by
law?” Morris answered, “yes,” and signed the plea petition. It is clear that Morris “clearly understood that
the judge was not bound in any way by the recommendation of the district attorney.” Martin, 635 So. 2d
at 1356 (quoting Moore v. State, 394 So. 2d 1336, 1337 (Miss. 1981)).
¶9.
In sentencing Morris, the trial court considered Morris’ history. However, the trial court
determined that, good conduct notwithstanding, he pled guilty to three separate violent felonies. These
felonies consisted of three armed robberies with three separate victims. Morris put on a ski mask, bound
the victims with duct tape and robbed them at gunpoint. The trial court concluded that such crimes
warranted a tougher sentence than the State recommended. Just as in Martin, “we will not disturb the trial
court's discretion in sentencing.” Martin, 635 So. 2d at 1357 (quoting Gillum v. State, 468 So. 2d 856,
864 (Miss. 1985)). Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
¶10 THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY DENYING
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO JACKSON COUNTY.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER, BARNES
AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
4
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.