Smith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-00572-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CP-00572-COA ; 2009-CT-00572-SCT ; 2009-CT-00572-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-24-2012 Opinion Author: Russell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Illegal sentence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Fair, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Barnes, J., Concurs in Result Only Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-25-2009 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: L. Breland Hilburn Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 02-0-031 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Christopher R. Smith a/k/a Chris Smith/Christopher Anderson a/k/a Christopher Smith |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Illegal sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 2001, Christopher Smith was convicted of armed carjacking and was sentenced as a habitual offender to thirty years’ imprisonment without parole. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. In 2008, Smith filed a motion for leave to file a post-conviction relief motion in the circuit court. There is nothing to indicate that this motion was ever directly filed with the Mississippi Supreme Court. Instead, it appears that the circuit court forwarded the motion for leave to file a PCR motion to the Supreme Court. In 2009, Smith filed a petition for a writ of mandamus or for an order to show cause in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court entered an order granting Smith’s petition for writ of mandamus. The circuit court entered an order denying Smith’s PCR motion. Smith filed a notice of appeal and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the circuit court. In 2010, Smith filed a petition for a writ of mandamus or for an order to show cause regarding his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court of Appeals entered an order on Smith’s petition for writ of mandamus and remanded the case to the circuit court to render a judgment or conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Smith filed a motion to clarify the status of his appeal and to require the trial court to rule on his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court of Appeals denied the motion. Smith filed a second motion in the circuit court to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The circuit court entered an order granting Smith’s second motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Smith argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. A post-conviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is properly dismissed where it is manifestly without merit. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is manifestly without merit where the defendant fails to allege with ‘specificity and detail’ that his counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial to his defense. In this case, Smith failed to allege with specificity and detail that his counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial to his defense. Smith failed to submit any affidavits or other evidence to support his contentions. Issue 2: Illegal sentence Smith argues that his sentence is illegal, because the court did not submit his habitual offender status to the jury for determination. Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, his argument is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
