Garrett v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-CP-00476-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CP-00476-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-07-2012 Opinion Author: Russell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Defective indictment - Section 41-29-139(a)(1) - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-18-2011 Appealed from: Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2010-191-CV-L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Harvey Lee Garrett |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | JOHN R. HENRY JR. |
|
|
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 - Section 41-29-139(a)(1) - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Harvey Garrett pled guilty to the sale of a controlled substance and was sentenced to seventeen years, with twelve years to serve followed by five years of post-release supervision. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Garrett argues that his indictment was defective because it failed to state the name of the confidential informant to whom he sold the drugs. It is imperative that an indictment contain the essential elements of the crime with which the accused is charged. Section 41-29-139(a)(1) under which Garrett was indicted does not list the identity of the buyer of the drugs as an essential element of the crime. Thus, the buyer’s name did not have to be included in the indictment. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Garrett argues that his attorney was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss the indictment due to the alleged indictment defect. Where a defendant does not question his guilt, nor does he suggest any impairment to any defense that might have been made available to him, the defendant has not received ineffective assistance of counsel. Garrett also argues that he was without sufficient notice to prepare his defense. However, there was sufficient notice of the crucial elements of the offense, that he sold and delivered to another person a controlled substance. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
