Caston v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-01398-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CT-01398-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-13-2007 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Evidentiary hearing - Defective indictment - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Roberts, J., concurs with separate written opinion, joined by Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Dissenting Author : Lee, P.J., dissents with separate written opinion Dissent Joined By : KING, C.J. Dissenting Author : Irving, J., dissents with separate written opinion. Concurs in Result Only: GRIFFIS, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-01-2005 Appealed from: PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: DENIED MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Case Number: 05-146-PCS |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CLENARD CASTON |
CLENARD CASTON (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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 - Defective indictment - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Clenard Caston entered a guilty plea to one count of vehicular homicide and two counts of aggravated assault. Caston was sentenced to twenty-five years on the vehicular homicide count and twenty years on each of the two aggravated assault counts. Caston filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Evidentiary hearing Caston argues that the court erred in denying his motion without first holding an evidentiary hearing on the issues of defective indictment, ineffective assistance of counsel, and involuntary plea. In order to have obtained the right to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of his defective indictment, ineffective assistance of counsel, and involuntary plea claims, Caston was required to establish a prima facie case of each allegation in his motion to the circuit court. A post-conviction claim for relief is properly dismissed without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing where it is manifestly without merit. Issue 2: Defective indictment Caston argues that the prosecutor’s failure to include the word “serious” as a modifier for the phrase “bodily injury,” denied him actual notice of whether he was being charged with the felony crime of aggravated assault under section 97-3-7(2) or the misdemeanor crime of simple assault under section 97-3-7(1). Caston’s indictment is legally sufficient. Each of the enumerated items of URCCC 7.06 can be found within the indictment as well as a plain and concise statement of the facts notifying Caston that he is being charged with one count of vehicular homicide and two counts of aggravated assault arising out of his unlawful and felonious, negligent and reckless, operation of a motor vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance, on or about February 3, 2002. Counts two and three contain the language “under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” This language is found only within the aggravated assault statute and is not contained within the simple assault statute. Counts two and three specifically charge Caston under section 97-3-7(2)(a), a specific subsection of the code outlining the crime of aggravated assault. Finally, the indictment does not reference the misdemeanor charge of simple assault by title or citation to the code. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Caston argues that his counsel provided erroneous advice rising to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel, when his attorney advised him to accept a guilty plea under an indictment which failed to include the word “serious” as a modifier for the phrase bodily injury. Since the indictment against Caston was in no way defective, this issue is meritless. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
