Ingram v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2011-CP-00548-COA
Linked Case(s): 2011-CP-00548-COA ; 2011-CT-00548-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-17-2012
Opinion Author: Fair, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: PCR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-29-2011
Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court
Judge: Lester Williamson, Jr.
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED
Case Number: 10-CV-163(W)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Christopher R. Ingram a/k/a Christopher Ingram a/k/a Christopher Ray Ingram




PRO SE



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA H. TEDDER  

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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: In 2007, Christopher Ingram pled guilty to the lustful touching of a child and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, with nine years and three hundred sixty-one days suspended. Ingram received credit for the four days he had served and was placed on post-release supervision for five years. Because of an unspecified disability, Ingram was unable to work, and his supervision fees were waived. In 2010, the circuit court revoked Ingram’s probation. Ingram filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the court dismissed. Ingram appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Ingram argues that he is mentally disabled due to post-traumatic stress disorder and did not understand the guilty-plea proceeding and that this renders his plea invalid. A plea is deemed voluntary and intelligent only where the defendant is advised concerning the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of the plea. The record shows that Ingram was thirty-one at the time of the plea hearing, had completed the sixth grade, and had read the plea petition with the assistance of his wife and attorney. Ingram acknowledged that he understood the petition. The trial judge questioned Ingram, determined he was not under the influence of any alcohol or drugs, and informed him of the rights he would be waiving if he pled guilty instead of having a jury trial. Further, Ingram was informed of the State’s proof and sentencing recommendation and affirmed that he understood the recommendation. Thus, there is nothing in the record that indicates Ingram’s plea was not knowing and voluntary. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Ingram argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, because his attorney failed to bring Ingram’s mental defect to the trial court’s attention. As already noted, this claim is without merit. Ingram also asserts that his attorney failed to investigate the facts of the case. The only support for this allegation is an affidavit Ingram executed himself. This affidavit merely restates his allegations in general terms and provides no supporting evidence. Bare allegations are insufficient to prove ineffective assistance of counsel.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court