Carroll v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CP-01204-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-21-2007
Opinion Author: CARLTON, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Validity of indictment - Validity 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
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-26-2006
Appealed from: PONTOTOC COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Paul S. Funderburk
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
Case Number: CV05-348F(PO)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: JOEY W. CARROLL




JOEY W. CARROLL (PRO SE)



 

Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY  

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 - Validity of indictment - Validity of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: Joey Carroll pled guilty to the sale of methamphetamine. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of indictment Carroll argues that his indictment did not meet the statutory requirements for validity, because the record does not show the minutes of the grand jury, the indictment is not stamped “filed,” there is no proof of the number of present jurors, and there was no sworn oath by the foreman of the grand jury. Legal evidence of the concurrence of twelve or more of the grand jurors in finding and presenting the indictment is fully established by the signing thereof on the part of the foreman and the marking of it ‘filed’ by the clerk of the court. Carroll’s indictment was signed by the foreman of the grand jury, stamped “filed,” and marked, dated and signed by the clerk. In addition, Carroll entered a valid guilty plea. As such, all non-jurisdictional defects in the indictment were waived. Issue 2: Validity of plea Carroll argues that his plea is invalid because counsel coerced him into entering a guilty plea and counsel never informed him of his constitutional right to be indicted by a grand jury. A guilty plea is valid where it is entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. Carroll’s own statements in his appellate brief demonstrate that he was properly informed of the sentence he could receive from entering a guilty plea. He makes no argument that he was otherwise uninformed of the circumstances and likely consequences of entering his guilty plea. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Carroll argues that the performance of his counsel was constitutionally deficient, because counsel failed to discover Carroll’s indictment was defective, recommended entering a guilty plea where there was a defective indictment, failed to move to quash the defective indictment, failed to interview potential witnesses, failed to notify Carroll about the right to a speedy trial, and failed to adequately prepare for trial because counsel did not discover the defective indictment. The arguments advanced by Carroll fail to meet the required burden that counsel was deficient, and that Carroll was prejudiced by counsel’s deficiency.


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