A “habitual criminal law” is a law that enhances your potential sentence and imposes greater penalties if you have a previous criminal record at the time you are sentenced. These laws are known as “three strikes” laws, and they are the darlings of the “please re-elect me because I’m tough on crime” crowd. When you come to discuss your case with me, one of the first things we will cover is your prior criminal record, if you have one. In some circumstances, we will need to take your case to trial, no matter how bad your case is, due to the potential effects of Mississippi’s habitual criminal laws.
Mississippi has two main habitual offender laws, known in criminal law circles has the “little b**ch” and the “big b**ch.” If you meet certain requirments, and the state can prove that you meet these requirements, the Mississippi legislature has removed some “leeway” the judge might have in determining your sentence, and the results can be harsh. In other words, we need to fight to prevent the operation of these statutes in your case as much as we can.
Habitual criminals: maximum term
Section 99-19-81 is the “lighter” of the two habitual statutes, and reads as follows:
Section 99-19-83 is the “tougher” of the two habitual statutes, and reads as follows:
- The state MUST properly indict you under these statutes for you to be convicted under them.
- But the state might be able to amend the indictment up until your trial date, if it can prove you had the proper notice and an opportunity to defend yourself.
- The state must “prove” these prior convictions with competent evidence (usually testimony from custodian of records at the Mississippi Department of Corrections).
- The prior, or “predicate,” convictions can come from Mississippi, federal court, or from any other state.
- There is no specific definition of a “crime of violence,” but common sense has guided courts in making the determination (armed robbery, attempted rape, manslaughter, aggravated assault, etc.).
EXAMPLE: You have two prior convictions, one for felony shoplifting, and the other for possession of marijuana with intent. If you get caught with a firearm, and are convicted of being a “felon-in-possession,” if you are indicted under the first statute, you will automatically be sentenced to ten years “flat time,” or “day-for-day,” because 10 years is the maximum penalty prescribed for being a felon in possession. Let’s change the facts a little: You have two prior convictions, one for felony shoplifting, and one for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. If you write a bad check for $100.00 (a bad check for $100.00 or more is a felony), then you face imprisonment for LIFE, with no opportunity to get out, because the agg. assault charge would be considered a violent felony.
These laws have overwhelming public support, because of their “tough on crime” appeal. If you are on the receiving end, and have been indicted under one of these statutes, you absolutely need a good criminal lawyer to explain how they will work, and advise you on your options. As I stated, it may be that we have to take your case to trial. And if that is the case, contact me as soon as you can.




{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
My question is Sect. 97-23-93 (8) states “in determining the number of prior shoplifting convictions for the purpose of imposing punishment under this section, the court shal disregard all such convictions occurring more than seven (7) years prior to the shoplifting offense in question.”
The habitual offender statute appears not to have a limitation on how far back the state can go to qualifythem to file under the habitual offender statute, seeking the highest penalty withou the possibility of early release.
Can you point me to any law that would favor Sect. 97-23-93 (8) MCA vs. Habitual offender statute?
Thanks,
John Satcher, Atty.
John:
The answer to your question is no.
Good luck,
Attended a Motions hearing in Bay St. Louis on yesterday, 10/18/11, on a Motion to Suppress brought by my son-in-law’s attorney in a Marijuana possession case. He is being tried as a “life sentence” habitual offender. At 17 my son-in-law was convicted of three felonies all non-violent, non-drug related, and all stemming from one arrest. He received probation on each charge all to be served concurrently. Two years into his probation he was violated, at that time he went to prison for 3 years. I don’t see how this qualifies him as a “life sentence” habitual offender. The Prosecutor offered him a deal of 5 years with no early release(3xrule) because if he goes to court and looses he will get life. He is going to take the deal but – does the 3 time rule apply here-?
Thank you for your question.
Unfortunately I am unable to answer it due to the fact that your son-in-law is already represented by counsel. I am ethically prohibited from offering second opinions to person who are already have an attorney. Best I can offer is to thoroughly discuss the case with the attorney he already has, so that an informed decision can be made.
Good luck,