Dedric Demond Minor v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CP-00990-COA
DEDRIC DEMOND MINOR
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
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:
APPELLEE
1/18/2007
HON. WILLIAM E. CHAPMAN III
MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
DEDRIC DEMOND MINOR (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BILLY L. GORE
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
AFFIRMED - 10/14/2008
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ.
MYERS, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Dedric Demond Minor pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of Madison County to the
crime of aggravated assault and received a sentence of twenty years in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections. Minor now appeals the trial court’s denial of his
request for post-conviction relief, claiming his sentence was disproportionate to the crime
in light of his status as a first-time offender. Finding no error in the decision of the trial
court, we affirm the denial of Minor’s motion for post-conviction relief.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
Minor pleaded guilty in open court to the crime of aggravated assault, which the trial
court accepted as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Minor was sentenced to serve twenty
years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Minor filed a motion for postconviction relief, which was denied by the trial court. It is from this denial that Minor seeks
relief.
DISCUSSION
WHETHER THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO
THE CRIME.
¶3.
“A trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief will not be reversed absent a finding
that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous.” Sellars v. State, 963 So. 2d 1183, 1184
(¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Smith v. State, 806 So. 2d 1148, 1150 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App.
2002)). In addition, questions of law are reviewed de novo. Id. (citing Brown v. State, 731
So. 2d 595, 598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999)).
¶4.
Minor asserts that his sentence of twenty years was disproportionate to the crime,
especially in light of his status as a first-time offender and a father of two children. Minor
also alleges that he was unable to present mitigating factors to the trial court. Minor asks
that the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief be reversed and that his case be
remanded for resentencing in the interest of justice.
¶5.
The State argues that Minor has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence
that his sentence was disproportionate to the crime. The State argues that the sentence was
proper as it was well within the limits statutorily prescribed under Mississippi Code
2
Annotated section 97-3-7(2) (Rev. 2006).
¶6.
“The general rule in Mississippi is that a sentence that does not exceed the maximum
term allowed by the statute cannot be disturbed on appeal.” Sellars, 963 So. 2d at 1184 (¶6)
(citing Edwards v. State, 800 So. 2d 454, 468 (¶45) (Miss. 2001)). “Sentencing is within the
complete discretion of the trial court and not subject to appellate review if it is within the
limits prescribed by statute.” Id. (quoting Edwards, 800 So. 2d at 468 (¶45)). However,
“when a sentence is ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime committed, the sentence is
subject to attack on the grounds that it violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel
and unusual punishment.” Lewis v. State, 905 So. 2d 729, 737 (¶26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)
(quoting Wallace v. State, 607 So. 2d 1184, 1188 (Miss. 1992)). In the case at bar, we find
from our review of the record that there is no “inference of gross disproportionality”;
therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief. Sellars, 963 So. 2d at
1184 (¶6) (citing Edwards, 800 So. 2d at 469 (¶47)).
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY
DENYING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO MADISON COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, 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.
