Holifield v. State
| Docket Number: | 2001-CP-00315-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-CP-00315-COA ; 2001-CT-00315-COA ; 2001-CT-00315-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-11-2003 Opinion Author: King, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Defective indictment - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Cruel and unusual punishment - Section 63-3-401 - Discovery - Prosecutorial misconduct - Access to courts Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-05-2001 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: PCR SUMMARILY DENIED District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: A2402-99-162 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Clifton Lewis Holifield |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: WAYNE SNUGGS |
|
|
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 - Defective indictment - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Cruel and unusual punishment - Section 63-3-401 - Discovery - Prosecutorial misconduct - Access to courts |
| Summary of the Facts: | Clifton Holifield pled guilty to a felony charge of leaving the scene of an accident and was sentenced as an habitual offender to five years. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Holifield argues that the indictment was defective due to the lack of an essential descriptive element of the offense charged. A voluntary guilty plea does not waive a defect in the indictment if the indictment fails to charge a necessary element of a crime or if there exists no subject matter jurisdiction. An indictment is sufficient if it tracks the language of a criminal statute. Here, the indictment tracked the language of the statute. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Holifield argues that his plea was involuntary, because his third attorney misrepresented the law and he entered his plea on the reliance of counsel's information. A plea is voluntary where the accused has knowledge of the critical elements of the charge against him and he fully understood the charge including the effects of pleading guilty and what might happen to him in the sentencing phase. Holifield has failed to provide a copy of the plea transcript with the appellate record, but the trial judge noted that the plea hearing clearly shows Holifield knew the elements of the crime with which he was charged, understood the consequences of pleading guilty and the rights he was waiving by doing so, and was fully advised as to the possible sentence. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Holifield argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. He claims that his first attorney was ineffective for failing to file a motion for speedy trial. However, the entry of a guilty plea waives this issue. Holifield claims that his second attorney made a firm representation that upon Holifield's return from Florida, he would be released because his Mississippi time would run concurrently with his prior sentence. He also claims that his third attorney swore that the time served would be credited against his Mississippi sentence. To prove his claim, he must show the attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. Holifield has failed to show that the deficiencies of his attorneys, if any, prejudiced his defense. Issue 4: Cruel and unusual punishment Holifield argues that the length of his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Section 63-3-401(1) and (4) provides for imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years, or by fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment. A sentence will not be reviewed if within statutory limits. Holifield’s sentence was within statutory limits. Issue 5: Discovery Holifield argues that he was deprived of the right to inspect or have an expert examine the State's evidence. A valid guilty plea operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional rights or defects which are incident to trial. Issue 6: Prosecutorial misconduct Holifield argues that the prosecution engaged in misconduct by stating if Holifield declined to enter a plea of guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, he would be indicted on a charge of manslaughter. In the "give-and-take" of plea bargaining, there is no element of punishment or retaliation so long as the accused is free to accept or reject the prosecution's offer. Holifield was free to accept or reject the prosecution’s proposed plea bargain. Issue 7: Access to courts Holifield argues that he was denied access to the courts because he attempted numerous times to file his pro se motions and have them placed upon the record, but they were returned with confusing responses. Since the court addressed Holifield's request for post-conviction relief, the reason for requesting a writ of mandamus was mooted. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
