Holland v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01669-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01669-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-06-2007 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of confessions - Voluntariness of pleas - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CARLTON, J. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING AND BARNES, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-20-2005 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED. Case Number: CV2005-0078CD |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2002-KA-01921-COA Jason Holland a/k/a Jason Allan Holland and Paul Sookraj v. State of Mississippi; DeSoto Circuit Court; LC Case #: CR2002-447 R/D; Ruling Date: 10/18/2002; Ruling Judge: George Ready; Consolidated with 2005-CA-01673-COA Paul Sookraj v. State of Mississippi; DeSoto Circuit Court; LC Case #: CV2005-0079CD; Ruling Date: 07/20/2005; Ruling Judge: Robert Chamberlin | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JASON HOLLAND A/K/A JASON ALLAN HOLLAND |
JEFFERSON D. GILDER |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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 - Voluntariness of confessions - Voluntariness of pleas - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jason Holland and Paul Sookraj pled guilty to the crime of armed robbery. Holland was sentenced to twenty years, with eight years to serve and twelve years suspended; Sookraj was sentenced to twenty years, with ten years to serve and ten years suspended. Holland and Sookraj, through their new joint counsel, filed separate motions to withdraw their guilty pleas. The circuit court entered separate orders denying the motions to withdraw the pleas. Holland and Sookraj then appealed, and their consolidated appeal was dismissed. Holland and Sookraj filed separate petitions for post-conviction collateral relief. The court dismissed both petitions. Holland and Sookraj now bring this consolidated appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of confessions Holland and Sookraj argue that their confessions were not voluntary because they relied on alleged promises made by Olive Branch police officers that they would receive lighter sentences, such as boot-camp or probation, if they confessed to the armed robbery. A valid guilty plea operates as a waiver of all nonjurisdictional rights or defects which are incident to trial. Accordingly, if Holland and Sookraj entered valid guilty pleas, then they explicitly waived any right to suppress the alleged coerced confessions. Issue 2: Voluntariness of pleas Holland and Sookraj argue that their separate pleas were not entered knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily, because their separate former counsel incorrectly advised them that the alleged promises of leniency in sentencing, made by the Olive Branch police to elicit their confessions, could not be enforced. A plea is deemed voluntary and intelligent only where the defendant is advised concerning the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of the plea. The record does not support Holland’s and Sookraj’s claims that their guilty pleas were involuntary. In their sworn petitions to enter a guilty plea, both Holland and Sookraj stated under oath that no officer or agent of any branch of government, nor any other person had made them any promises or inducements of any kind. Additionally, at the guilty plea hearing, the circuit court judge completed a detailed inquiry into the voluntariness of the pleas. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Holland and Sookraj argue that they received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, because their separate counsel incorrectly advised them that the alleged promises of leniency in sentencing, made by the Olive Branch police to elicit their confessions, could not be enforced. At no time prior to sentencing did Holland or Sookraj offer any evidence that the statements made to them by the Olive Branch police had anything to do with their confessions or their guilty pleas. Consequently, the officers’ alleged promises cannot be said to be the proximate cause of the confessions. In addition, both Holland and Sookraj were specifically asked if they were satisfied with the representation provided by their attorneys, and both answered in the affirmative. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
