Higginbotham v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-CP-00972-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CP-00972-COA ; 2011-CP-00972-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-25-2012 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Constitutionality of section 97-3-21 - Section 47-7-3(1)(f) - Voluntariness of plea - Parole eligibility - Indictment - Court appointed counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-16-2011 Appealed from: Winston County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2009-179-CV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Allen Higginbotham a/k/a James A. Higginbotham a/k/a James Higginbotham |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA LYNN BLOUNT |
|
|
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 - Constitutionality of section 97-3-21 - Section 47-7-3(1)(f) - Voluntariness of plea - Parole eligibility - Indictment - Court appointed counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Higginbotham pled guilty to murder and was sentenced to life. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the court denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Constitutionality of section 97-3-21 Higginbotham argues that section 97-3-21 is unconstitutionally broad and vague, because he is not eligible for parole as provided in section 97-3-21, i.e., the wording of section 97-3-21 has not been amended and is inconsistent with section 47-7-3(1)(f) regarding parole eligibility. The reference in section 97-3-21 to parole eligibility in capital-murder cases fails to impact this case since Higginbotham pled guilty and the trial court sentenced him to simple murder, not capital murder. And the testimony at the evidentiary hearing of Higginbotham’s uncle is consistent with Higginbotham’s testimony that his attorney told him he would be eligible for early release at age sixty-five. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Higginbotham argues that his plea was not voluntary because he was given erroneous advice by his defense counsel, i.e., his attorney told him he would be eligible for parole after serving only ten years of his life sentence. At his plea hearing, Higginbotham testified he was completely satisfied with the representation that he received from his defense counsel and his plea was his own free and voluntary act. After hearing testimony at the evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found that Higginbotham’s attorney correctly advised him that when he reached the age of sixty-five, he could petition to be released from custody under section 47-5-139(1)(a). There is no evidence in the record to contradict the court’s finding on this issue. Issue 3: Parole eligibility Higginbotham argues that the circuit court erroneously advised him that he would be eligible for parole. However, the record shows that the court informed Higginbotham of the consequences of his guilty plea and of the potential sentences that he stood to receive. The court did not state or infer that Higginbotham would be eligible for parole. Issue 4: Indictment Higginbotham argues that the grand jury intended to indict him for either conspiracy or aiding and abetting and therefore, the circuit court erred in sentencing him for murder. The grand jury indicted Higginbotham for capital murder but Higginbotham pled guilty to the lesser crime of murder. The record shows that the circuit court correctly advised Higginbotham of the potential sentences available for both capital murder and murder and that Higginbotham knew that he had been indicted for capital murder and was pleading guilty to the lesser crime of murder, with a sentence of life imprisonment. In addition, a valid guilty plea waives the right to challenge the sufficiency of the State’s evidence. Issue 5: Court appointed counsel Higginbotham argues that he was entitled to legal representation at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing and on this appeal. However, a criminal defendant has neither a state nor federal constitutional right to appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
