Donnelly v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-CP-00496-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00496-SCT ; 2002-CT-00496-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-01-2003 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Pleading to two counts - Coercion - Newly discovered evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-25-2002 Appealed from: Grenada County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED. District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2001-0453-CV-L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Lonnie Donnelly |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN |
|
|
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 - Pleading to two counts - Coercion - Newly discovered evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lonnie Donnelly pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery. He was sentenced to twenty years on each armed robbery count, with the sentences to run concurrently. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Donnelly argues that his attorney informed him that he would be eligible to participate in the earned time release program under which he had the prospect, based on his good behavior, of being released after serving eighty-five percent of his sentence of twenty years. A plea based on a defendant’s incorrect understanding of his eligibility for the earned time release program is not intelligently and knowingly made. If defense counsel’s erroneous advice is subsequently corrected by the trial court in the course of exploring the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea, then any harm arising from defense counsel’s misapprehension of the law is effectively counteracted and can no longer form the basis for post-conviction relief. Here, the court explored in some depth the matter of Donnelly’s right to participate in the earned time early release program and informed him that he should be prepared to serve his sentence “day for day” without any prospect of early release. Because defense counsel’s incorrect advice was discovered and corrected before Donnelly entered his plea, Donnelly cannot show that a different result would likely have resulted. Issue 2: Two counts Donnelly argues that he thought he was only being required to plead to one count of robbery rather than two. Because he raises this issue for the first time on appeal, it is procedurally barred. Issue 3: Coercion Donnelly argues that defense counsel somehow coerced him into going ahead with his plea of guilty after counsel’s erroneous advice about the earned release program was discovered. The movant has the obligation to assert specific facts that would show entitlement to relief and then, either through his own oath, by supporting affidavits, or other satisfactory means, demonstrate the existence of proof that, if found credible, would support the movant’s theory. After counsel’s previous error was discovered, the only additional discussion between Donnelly and his counsel consisted of a brief conversation to the effect that counsel believed that, in view of the fact that Donnelly had been indicted on a capital offense, the plea agreement still represented a favorable resolution of the case to Donnelly. Issue 4: Newly discovered evidence Donnelly argues that a collection of letters and statements from his co-defendants that he claims plainly demonstrates his innocence were not made available to him until after he had pled guilty. Even though this issue is barred since it is raised for the first time on appeal, Donnelly has the right to bring the claim in a subsequent motion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
