What will Burl do?
Is Lindsey Whiteside's sentence illegal?
Whiteside was convicted of sexual battery of a child in Desoto County Circuit Court this week. However, Special Circuit Judge Andrew Howorth sentenced her to three years of house arrest and seven years of probation. Desoto County District Attorney Matthew Barton protested the sentence was illegal.
What does the Mississippi Code have to say about the matter? Section 47-5-1003 states:
1) An intensive supervision program may be used as an alternative to incarceration for offenders who are not convicted of a crime of violence pursuant to Section 97-3-2 as selected by the court and for juvenile offenders as provided in Section 43-21-605. Any offender convicted of a sex crime shall not be placed in the program.
Section 97-3-2 defines crimes of violence:
- (1) The following shall be classified as crimes of violence:
- (a) Driving under the influence
- (b) Murder and attempted murder
- (c) Aggravated assault
- (d) Manslaughter
- (e) Killing of an unborn child
- (f) Kidnapping
- (g) Human trafficking
- (h) Poisoning as provided
- (i) Rape
- (j) Robbery
- (k) Sexual battery
- (l) Drive-by shooting or bombing
- (m) Carjacking
- (n) Felonious neglect, abuse or battery of a child
- (o) Burglary of a dwelling
- (p) Use of explosives or weapons of mass destruction
- (q) Statutory rape , but this classification is rebuttable on hearing by a judge;
- (r) Exploitation of a child
- (s) Gratification of lust
- (t) Shooting into a dwelling
Thus it appears Judge Howorth indeed gave Whiteside an illegal sentence when he sent her to the house.
Mr. Barton filed a motion for re-sentencing Thursday. The motion cites the "House Arrest" statute as banning those convicted of sex crimes from enjoying a sentence of house arrest.
The District Attorney pointed out how Judge Howorth treated a similar crime a wee bit differently earlier this year:
In similar cases, the Court has found time in prison to be well-warranted. One such case, presided over by the Honorable Andrew Howorth, is particularly illustrative. On July 28, 2025, Quintez Desean Hagan pleaded guilty to one count of sexual battery of a minor under the age of fourteen. The indicted offense occurred on April 21, 2021 - Hagan was eighteen years old (DOB: 08/25/2002), with the victim being thirteen (DOB: 06/07/2007). According to the victim, she had been texting Hagan, and the two agreed to meet at a location where they engaged in sexual intercourse and oral sex. Notably, the victim in Hagan's case initially signed a refusal-to-prosecute form. Although the District Attorney forced prosecution, neither the victim nor her family wished to participate at the sentencing hearing, write a victim impact statement, or offer a recommended sentence. On August 8, 2025, Hagan was sentenced to seven (7) years in prison, followed by eight (8) years of post-release supervision.
It is difficult to square the discrepancy between Hagan and the Defendant's respective sentences. While the facts of these cases differ in several ways (including the race and sex of the defendants), it is apparent the Court employed vastly different rationales at sentencing. Hagan's case involved an age gap of 4 years and 9 months; Whiteside was 8 years and 7 months older than M.F. Hagan sexually abused the victim on one particular day; Whiteside subjected M.F. to sexual abuse for 6 months. Hagan was 18 and lacked maturity; Whiteside was an adult with the benefit of fully formed adult brain. Unlike Hagan, Whiteside willingly assumed a position involving the supervision of minors, which entailed a heightened duty and responsibility.
Stay tuned.
Kingfish note: Can MDOC refuse to place Whiteside under the intense supervision program if the sentence is illegal? Commissioner Burl Cain should order his attorneys to research the matter and refuse to accept the sentence if there is some law to back up such action.
1 comment:
Yep, illegal
Post a Comment