Campbell v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00977-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00977-SCT ; 2003-CT-00977-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-09-2004 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Defective indictment - Entrapment - Right to speedy trial - Discovery - Voluntariness of plea - Improper sentence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-22-2003 Appealed from: Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: DENIAL OF POST-CONVICTION RELIEF District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2003-0038-CV-L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Andrew Campbell a/k/a Dick Campbell |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Post-conviction relief - Defective indictment - Entrapment - Right to speedy trial - Discovery - Voluntariness of plea - Improper sentence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Andrew Campbell pled guilty to two counts of the sale of a controlled substance and was sentenced to eighteen years with five years suspended. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Campbell argues his indictment is defective because Count I of the indictment did not specify the amount of cocaine that he allegedly sold. With the exception of trafficking, the penalty for the sale of cocaine is the same regardless of the quantity that was sold. Therefore, the amount of cocaine that Campbell sold was not an essential element to the crime. Issue 2: Entrapment Campbell argues his convictions should be set aside because he was entrapped. Because Campbell’s guilty plea was voluntarily entered, he waived any defense he might have had to the charge, including the defense of entrapment. Issue 3: Right to speedy trial Campbell argues that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. A total of two hundred and nine days elapsed between the time Campbell waived arraignment and the date he entered his guilty plea. Therefore, he was not denied his statutory right to a speedy trial. With regard to his constitutional right, only seven months elapsed between the time Campbell was indicted and the date of his conviction. This delay which is less than eight months is not presumptively prejudicial and no further inquiry is necessary. Issue 4: Discovery Campbell argues his convictions should be set aside because he was not provided discovery. A valid guilty plea operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional rights or defects which are incident to trial. Issue 5: Voluntariness of plea Campbell argues his plea was the result of coercion and fear. Not only is there no evidence in the record that Campbell pled guilty because he was pressured or threatened by anyone or due to the fear of receiving a thirty year sentence, but he has offered no specific facts to support his claim that he pled guilty because of his counsel’s erroneous advice. Issue 6: Improper sentence Campbell argues that he should be re-sentenced because the trial court was unaware of the fact that he had no prior felony convictions at the time he was sentenced. However, paragraph eight of Campbell’s petition to enter a plea of guilty stated this fact. Issue 7: Ineffective assistance of counsel Campbell argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to challenge a defective indictment, destroyed discovery material, and allowed him to plead guilty out of fear, coercion, and the threat of a thirty year sentence. As noted above, there was no defect in the indictment and Campbell’s plea was valid. With regard to his remaining claim, Campbell has failed to offer any supporting affidavits. In addition, it would be impossible for Campbell to be prejudiced by the destruction of the tape. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
