Prince v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CP-01597-COA
Linked Case(s): 2006-CT-01597-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-07-2007
Opinion Author: IRVING, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Dismissal of conspiracy charge - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): ROBERTS, J.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-21-2005
Appealed from: Kemper County Circuit Court
Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts
Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED.
Case Number: 2005-CV-22R

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: ODELL PRINCE




ODELL PRINCE (PRO SE)



 

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 plea - Dismissal of conspiracy charge - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: Odell Prince pled guilty to sale of cocaine and was sentenced to twenty years. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Prince argues that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. In order for a plea to be voluntary, a defendant must be advised concerning the nature of the charge against her and the consequences of her plea including the minimum and maximum sentences that may be imposed. A review of the record reveals that Prince was informed of the nature of the charges against him, and that he was informed of the possible minimum and maximum sentences that might have been imposed. Furthermore, it is clear that Prince was informed of the constitutional rights that he was waiving by pleading guilty. Prince maintained at the hearing that his attorney had told him that he would be eligible for parole, but the court went to great lengths to make sure that Prince understood that, due to his habitual offender status, he would not be eligible for parole. It was only after being informed of this by the court that Prince pleaded guilty. Prince’s responses during the plea colloquy belie any allegation that his plea was the product of unfulfilled promises or some other inducement. Taken as a whole, Prince appears to have understood the consequences of his guilty plea. Issue 2: Dismissal of conspiracy charge Prince argues that the court erred in dismissing the conspiracy charge against him and in allowing him to plead guilty to sale of cocaine, because the facts he described do not constitute a sale of cocaine. While it is true that Prince did not physically sell the drugs to the officer, he gave drugs to another man knowing that he would sell the drugs to the officer. Clearly, Prince encouraged or assisted the other man in the commission of the actual crime. Therefore, Prince could be held accountable as a principal for the sale of the cocaine. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Prince argues that his attorney was ineffective for advising him that he was eligible for parole. Any deficiency was corrected by the court, which made sure that Prince understood that he was not, in fact, eligible for parole. When he entered his guilty plea, Prince knew that he was not parole eligible. Therefore, any advice to the contrary from his attorney could not have prejudiced his case.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court