Jones v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CP-00598-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-11-2007 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Time to prepare for trial - Reinstatement of guilty plea - Validity of plea Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-23-2007 Appealed from: MARSHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: M2005-184 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DOUGLAS JONES |
DOUGLAS JONES (PRO SE) |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE | ||
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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Time to prepare for trial - Reinstatement of guilty plea - Validity of plea |
| Summary of the Facts: | Douglas Jones pled guilty to one count of sexual battery of a child and was sentenced to twenty years, with fifteen years suspended and three years of post-release supervision. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the circuit court for a hearing on whether there was merit to any of Jones’s claims. The court found that there was no merit to any of Jones’s post-conviction claims. Jones appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Jones argues that he was represented by ineffective counsel both during his initial plea of guilty and at the hearing on his post-conviction claims. Jones claims that his counsel at the post-conviction hearing allowed the court to clearly violate Jones’ due process rights by not proceeding to trial as ordered. Although the court had set a trial date in anticipation of the State confessing Jones’ motion, that action did not prevent the court from holding a hearing on the merits of Jones’ PCR motion to determine if a trial would be warranted. There was nothing the attorney could have done to force the court to proceed to trial in lieu of a hearing to determine if Jones would be allowed to withdraw his previously-entered guilty plea. Jones also questions the attorney’s failure to answer/ask important questions of witnesses. There is nothing to overcome the presumption that the attorney’s choice of what to ask and what not to ask was anything other than sound trial strategy. Jones argues that his attorney did not adequately research the sexually transmitted disease, trichomoniasis. However, the attorney testified that he researched the infection and spoke with a doctor about how the infection might be spread. Jones also criticizes the attorney for encouraging him to plead guilty. However, the attorney completely contradicted Jones’ assertion that he pleaded guilty only due to coercion from the attorney. Jones also argues that his attorney was ineffective for failing to interview certain witnesses. However, he has failed to show how these witnesses would have helped his case. Issue 2: Time to prepare for trial Jones argues that the court erred in denying him and his appointed counsel adequate time to prepare for trial. This claim of error is entirely moot, as Jones never went to trial. Issue 3: Reinstatement of guilty plea Jones argues that the trial court had to proceed with trial after the case had initially been set for trial. Such is clearly not the law. The court did not abuse its discretion in having an evidentiary hearing rather than proceeding to trial. Issue 4: Validity of plea Jones argues that the record does not accurately reflect the nature of the charge and the elements of the crime were not explained to him by his attorney. Clearly, the attorney testified that he described both the elements of the crime and the factual basis for the charge to Jones before Jones pleaded guilty. Jones’s claim to the contrary is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
