Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Middleton v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Decided December 7, 2010No. 2009-CP-00977-COAPublished

1Concurrence

KING, C.J.,

specially concurring:

¶ 18. I agree with the majority that the dismissal of the motion for post-conviction relief should be affirmed. However, I do so for other reasons. The facts of this case and a plain reading of the applicable statutes lead me to the conclusion that Kurt Middleton was not sentenced as a habitual offender.

¶ 14. Middleton was charged with uttering a forged instrument under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-21-59 (Rev.2006). Subsequently, Middleton agreed to enter a plea of guilty to the charge of uttering a forged instrument. The relevant penalty for this…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Robinson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Pool v. StateCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 1998
  3. Sago v. StateCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2008
  4. Crump v. StateCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API