McNeal v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-CP-00284-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-13-2007 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: PCR; Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-26-2006 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Stephen Simpson Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: A2401-05-00038 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | WILLIAM CLARK MCNEAL, SR. A/K/A WILLIAM C. MCNEAL |
WILLIAM CLARK MCNEAL, SR. (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 - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | William McNeal, Sr., pled guilty to two counts of forcible sexual intercourse. He was sentenced to twenty years on each count to run concurrently, to serve twelve years with eight suspended, and two years of post-release supervision. McNeal filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea McNeal argues that he was improperly induced into pleading guilty because his attorney arranged for McNeal’s parents to persuade him to take the plea agreement. A guilty plea is valid only if it is entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. The record shows that McNeal was informed of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences of entering a guilty plea. The petition to enter his plea and the plea hearing transcript evidence that McNeal knew the elements of the crime, the minimum and maximum sentence he could receive, the constitutional rights he was waiving, and the specific acts to which he was admitting guilt. McNeal also argues that the court improperly accepted his plea and sentenced him because he was on psychotic drugs. The judge specifically inquired whether McNeal was taking any medication. McNeal responded that he had taken his prescription medication the night before including Elavil, Thorazine, and Prozac. The judge accepted McNeal’s plea only after satisfying himself beyond a reasonable doubt that McNeal was intelligent enough to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings. The record is void of any indication that McNeal was unaware of the circumstances and likely consequences of his guilty plea. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel McNeal argues his counsel was ineffective because he did not order a mental evaluation knowing that McNeal was on psychotic drugs, failed to investigate the circumstances relating to the incidents, failed to interview witnesses, misstated to McNeal’s parents the sentence that he would receive, and did not comply with McNeal’s desire to go to trial. Even if a mental evaluation was requested, the decision to have McNeal undergo a mental evaluation ultimately rested with the trial judge. Since the judge did not abuse his discretion by not ordering a mental evaluation, counsel was not ineffective for failing to request an evaluation. Given the facts of the incidents, counsel was not constitutionally deficient for failing to interview the two victims and witnesses that placed McNeal at the scene of the alleged crimes. The record clearly demonstrates that McNeal repeatedly pursued the path of entering a guilty plea and never once even hinted that he was unsatisfied with the performance of his counsel or that he desired a trial. Had McNeal gone to trial he faced the possibility of three life sentences. The record reflects that he is only serving twelve years in prison, due in part to the efforts of his counsel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
