Vanwey v. State – Vanwey was indicted on four counts of sale of hydrocodone and one count of sale of codeine. She pleaded guilty to three counts and was sentenced to eleven years without parole as an habitual. She filed two motions for post conviction relief. This is an appeal from the denial of her last pcr petition. Both petitions, however, allege that the part of the indictment setting out the habitual enhancement was defective. Specifically, she claims that the dates cited in the indictment were not the dates of previous judgments but rather the dates of her previous convictions. She claims URCCC 11.03(1) requires the indictemnt to set forth: “the nature or description of the offense constituting the previous convictions, the state or federal jurisdiction of any previous conviction, and the date of judgment.” The Ct. of Appeals held that the indictment provided sufficient notice.
“Here, the sentence-enhancement portion of Vanwey’s indictment stated that she had been previously ordered to serve a term of forty-five days and then be placed under a term of five years of reporting post-release supervision, pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-7-34 (Rev. 2011). Vanwey’s sentence of forty-five days plus five years of post-release supervision qualifies as a sentence of one year or more for the purposes of section 99-19-81. Additionally, Vanwey had been previously convicted of credit-card fraud and sentenced to a term of three years, with two years and two hundred seventy-five days to be suspended. As a result, we find no merit to this issue.”
This is another pro se proceeding. Voting to grant are Justices Waller, Dickinson, Kitchens, Chandler, King and Coleman. Justices Randolph, Lamar and Pierce voted to deny.