Smith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-CP-01398-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-04-2007 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Evidentiary hearing - Amendment of indictment - Voluntariness of plea Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: PCR; Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-15-2006 Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr. Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED. Case Number: 2006-0055-CV1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JOSEPH CHRIS SMITH |
JOSEPH CHRIS SMITH (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DESHUN TERRELL MARTIN |
|
|
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 - Evidentiary hearing - Amendment of indictment - Voluntariness of plea |
| Summary of the Facts: | Joseph Smith pled guilty to robbery as a habitual offender. He was sentenced to fifteen years without the possibility of parole. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Evidentiary hearing In order to obtain an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, such as alleged by Smith, the defendant must state a prima facie claim in his petition to the lower court. The record reflects that Smith signed a very detailed petition to enter a guilty plea, which stated very clearly that he understood and made his plea voluntarily and willingly. In addition, at the plea hearing, Smith told the trial judge that he was satisfied with his lawyer’s advice and understood the implications of pleading guilty. There is no evidence in the record or specific facts given in Smith’s brief which would prove that his counsel was less than competent in his representation of Smith. Since Smith failed to raise a prima facie claim of ineffective counsel, no evidentiary hearing by the trial court was warranted. Issue 2: Amendment of indictment Smith argues that the State’s failure to make a formal motion in the record to amend the indictment under section 99-19-81 is error and cause for remand and re-sentencing. Smith was made aware of the substance of the amendment to the indictment at the hearing. The amendment was not made due to some original error on the part of the State but as a result of a lenient plea agreement. There was no error in the amendment. Smith also argues that the State’s motion to amend indictment was defective, because it listed a prior conviction for stealing a motor vehicle when, in fact, Smith was actually convicted of attempt to steal a motor vehicle. While there was a minor omission in the motion, Smith was nonetheless convicted of a felony and still qualified as habitual offender under section 99-19-81. Issue 3: Voluntariness of plea Smith argues that his plea was involuntarily given that he had no opportunity to confront witnesses and evidence on the charges, specifically the charge of attempt to steal a motor vehicle, which led to his classification as a habitual offender. A defendant’s prior offenses in a habitual offender case are not substantive elements of the claim. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
