Payton v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-CP-00347-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00347-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-06-2003 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Illegal sentence - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Plea agreement - Revocation of probation - Due process - Excessive sentence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-05-2002 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Stephen Simpson Disposition: POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEFDENIED District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: A-2402-01-00186 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Gregory Paxton Payton |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS |
|
|
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 - Voluntariness of plea - Illegal sentence - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Plea agreement - Revocation of probation - Due process - Excessive sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gregory Payton was convicted of rape. His conviction and sentenced were affirmed on appeal. Payton filed a petition for post-conviction relief which the circuit court denied. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decision on the grounds that Payton’s attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and remanded the case for a new trial. Payton then pled guilty and received a sentence of thirty-five years' imprisonment, with fifteen years suspended and five years' probation. When Payton was later convicted of two counts of indecent exposure, the court revoked his probation because he failed to register as a sex offender. Payton filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was denied. Payton appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Payton argues that the only reason he pled guilty was because his attorney erroneously advised him to do so. A plea is considered voluntary if the defendant is advised about the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of the entry of the plea. In his petition to enter a plea of guilty, Payton indicated that his attorney had advised him as to the nature of the charge, that he understood his constitutional rights, that he understood the range of sentences he could receive, that he knew that the sentence was in the discretion of the court, and that he was satisfied with his attorney. In addition, the judge gave a very careful and detailed explanation to Payton about what exactly was involved if he pled guilty to rape. Issue 2: Illegal sentence Payton argues that his five year sentence of probation was illegal. Not only is this issue procedurally barred since Payton did not raise this issue at the time he was sentenced, but the sentence imposed was within the statutory limit. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Payton argues that his counsel was ineffective because of threats and promises made in order to force Payton to plead guilty and because he failed to pursue the bond issue. To prove his claim, he must show his attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. In his petition to enter a plea of guilty and in open court, Payton stated that he was satisfied with the assistance and counsel his attorney provided. In addition, whether or not Payton received a second hearing on the issue of a bond does not rise to the level of prejudice to the defense of his case. Issue 4: Plea agreement Payton argues that the sentencing judge ordered that he did not have to comply with sex offender registration. There is no evidence that would indicate that any such statement was made or instruction was ever given by the judge. Issue 5: Revocation of probation Payton argues that his probation was unlawfully revoked, because he was not aware of the date of his revocation hearing until he was taken to the hearing and, thus, had no opportunity to prepare. The minimum due process requirements applicable to probation revocation hearings include written notice of the claimed violations of probation; disclosure to the probation of the evidence against him; an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer finds good cause for not allowing such confrontation); a neutral and detached hearing body or officer; and a written statement by the fact finder as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking the probation. Payton was accorded these minimum due process requirements. He signed the waiver of preliminary hearing which contained the charges against him, and his revocation hearing was not held until some two months later when he was given the opportunity to be heard on the matter. Issue 6: Excessive sentence Payton argues that his sentence exceeds his life expectancy. This issue is procedurally barred because he did not raise the issue at the time he was sentenced. In addition, the sentence does not exceed his life expectancy since he would be fifty-nine and a half years of age on his actual date of release. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
