Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by Michael R. Pardue against the revocation of his probation, following a complex legal history beginning with his 1987 arrest and indictment for multiple charges, including escape and burglary. Initially convicted in 1988, Pardue's convictions underwent several appellate reviews, leading to a mixed outcome and a 2001 resentencing. His sentence included a split sentence for burglary with probation, which the State moved to revoke in 2011 due to new offenses. Pardue contended the circuit court lacked jurisdiction for revocation, citing an improper application of the Split Sentence Act from 2001 rather than the applicable 1987 version. The appellate court agreed, finding the original split sentence and subsequent probation revocation legally invalid, as the 1987 law did not permit such sentencing for Class A felonies like first-degree burglary. Consequently, the case was remanded for resentencing without the split sentence component. Pardue's appeal also raised issues of double jeopardy and sentencing jurisdiction, which the court deemed unnecessary to address due to its ruling on the sentence's legality. The court instructed the circuit court to conduct a new sentencing hearing within specified guidelines, allowing Pardue to challenge time credit calculations through habeas corpus if applicable.
Legal Issues Addressed
Credit for Time Servedsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Pardue may contest the State's calculations regarding his prison time if he believes he is not receiving proper credit after the court's reconsideration.
Reasoning: If Pardue believes he is not receiving proper credit for time served after the circuit court's reconsideration, he may file a habeas corpus petition to contest the State's calculations regarding his prison time.
Probation Revocation Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined it did not have jurisdiction to revoke Pardue's probation due to errors in sentencing under the Split Sentence Act.
Reasoning: Since Pardue's 20-year sentence exceeded this limit, the circuit court lacked the authority to impose a split sentence or to conduct a probation-revocation hearing, rendering both the sentence and the revocation order illegal.
Resentencing Authority and Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The circuit court is required to conduct a new sentencing hearing to reconsider the execution of Pardue's valid sentence.
Reasoning: The circuit court lacked the authority to impose a sentence under the Split Sentence Act for Pardue, necessitating a remand for the removal of the split portion of his sentence.
Sentencing Under the Split Sentence Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted that the law applicable at the time of the offense determines sentencing, and the Split Sentence Act of 1987 did not allow split sentences for Pardue's offense.
Reasoning: Under the 1987 law, first-degree burglary was a Class A felony, punishable by 10 years to life imprisonment. The court highlighted that the Split Sentence Act of 1987 permitted split sentences only for offenses with maximum sentences of 15 years or less.