Booker v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00268-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-18-2003 Opinion Author: Bridges, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Excessive sentence - Voluntariness of plea Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-08-2002 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Tomie Green Disposition: POST-CONVICTION HEREBY DENIED. District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 251-00-925 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Craig L. Booker |
CHARLES E. MILLER |
||
| 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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Excessive sentence - Voluntariness of plea |
| Summary of the Facts: | Craig Booker pled guilty to four counts of armed robbery and one count of strong armed robbery. He was sentenced to thirty years on each count of armed robbery and to five years on the strong armed robbery conviction, to run concurrently. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Booker argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, because he was not satisfied with his pleas and his sentence was disproportionate to the sentence given to an accomplice. To prove his claim, he must show his attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. The record shows that Booker was well aware of both the maximum and minimum sentences for the crimes charged, that there was a potential for him to receive four consecutive life sentences plus an additional fifteen years, and that his attorney negotiated an agreement with the prosecution limiting his sentence to only thirty years for each armed robbery and five years for the strong armed robbery. He also indicated that his lawyer did a "good job" on the sentencing aspect of his case and that he was satisfied with the services provided by his attorney. The record belies his claim. Issue 2: Excessive sentence Booker argues that his sentence was excessive. If the sentence imposed is within the limits fixed by statute, it will not be reversed. Booker was involved in five robberies, and he received less time for all five than he would have received for just one. Although he complains that his sentence was disproportionate to the sentence imposed on an accomplice, there are no statutes or case law stating that a defendant must receive a sentence proportionate to a sentence imposed on an accomplice. Issue 3: Voluntariness of plea Booker argues that, but for the ill-informed advice of counsel, he may have taken advantage of the constitutional guarantee of a trial by jury and could have been found guilty of a lesser-included charge. Booker did not raise the issue of voluntariness in his petition or present it during the evidentiary hearing. Therefore, it has not been properly preserved for appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
