Thomas v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01928-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-01928-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 01-22-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-01-2004 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Basis for dismissal - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-13-2002 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest Johnson Disposition: THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WAS DISMISSED District Attorney: Ronnie Lee Harper Case Number: 02-KV-0319-J |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Willie James Thomas |
Bobby T. Vance |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART; Charles W. Maris, Jr.; Jim Hood |
|
|
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 - Basis for dismissal - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Thomas pled guilty to two counts of sale of cocaine. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Basis for dismissal The basis for the lower court's dismissal of Thomas' PCR was its finding that Thomas' arguments attacked a separate judgment of conviction from the one identified for collateral attack. While Thomas' PCR clearly identifies his judgment of conviction for two sales of cocaine as that which he intends to collaterally attack, his affidavit addresses the events of a plea of guilty to armed robbery. Besides Thomas' affidavit, none of the documents in the record pertain to the armed robbery conviction; the entirety of the record concerns the cocaine sales conviction. Therefore, the court erred by finding that Thomas failed to allege flaws in his cocaine sales conviction because he clearly did so in his motion and memorandum of law. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Thomas argues that his plea was involuntary because it was entered in response to erroneous advice from his attorney that he was eligible for parole. A plea is considered voluntary if the defendant is informed of the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of the plea. Even if a defendant receives erroneous advice from defense counsel, any misunderstanding created by this advice may be corrected by the court during the voluntariness inquiry. Here, the transcript shows that, while the court informed Thomas of the maximum and minimum sentences and of his eligibility for earned time release, the court never said anything about parole. In addition, his petition to enter a guilty plea is not in the record. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether Thomas was correctly informed about his parole eligibility by the plea petition. A defendant who alleges that his plea is not voluntary because of his reliance on his attorney's faulty advice regarding the possibility of parole is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the question of voluntariness. Therefore, Thomas is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Thomas argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney misadvised him about parole eligibility, failed to investigate the charges, and failed to advise him of his right to appeal or to file an appeal on his behalf. The plea hearing transcript and other evidence submitted do not show that Thomas ever received correct information about his parole eligibility. Therefore, Thomas has successfully alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's incorrect advice about parole eligibility, he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to explore the merits of this claim. Thomas' general allegation that an investigation by counsel would have discovered evidence that would have prompted Thomas to opt for a trial is too nebulous to overcome the presumption that counsel's actions were reasonable. With regard to pursuing an appeal, counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to assist Thomas in filing an appeal from his conviction since there is no right of appeal from a conviction entered pursuant to a guilty plea. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
