Spearman v. State
Docket Number: | 2002-CP-00540-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-25-2003 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Evidentiary hearing - Section 99-39-11 Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-14-2002 Appealed from: Grenada County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF DENIED District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2001-0516-CV-L |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Arthur Dean Spearman |
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 - Evidentiary hearing - Section 99-39-11 |
Summary of the Facts: | Arthur Spearman pled guilty to one count of automobile burglary and one count of escape. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Spearman argues that the court erred in dismissing his motion without a hearing. The movant is required to set forth with some measure of particularity the alleged facts which demonstrate his entitlement to relief and to also swear on his oath to the accuracy of those facts that are within his personal knowledge or satisfactorily demonstrate to the court, by supporting affidavit or other appropriate means, how he intends to prove those facts not personally known to him if given the opportunity. Section 99-39-11 allows the court to dismiss the motion if it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief. The only specific facts alleged in support of the conclusory allegations of Spearman’s motion are contained in a brief recital of his version of the events relating to the alleged crimes. There is nothing to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of defense counsel’s representation, illuminate any alleged defect in the indictment, or establish the unconstitutionality of the statutes under which Spearman was charged and sentenced. Therefore, the court was not required to conduct a hearing. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court