Cougle v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CP-00744-COA
Linked Case(s): 2006-CP-00744-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-22-2007
Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J.
Holding: Affirmed

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

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-18-2006
Appealed from: Calhoun County Circuit Court
Judge: Andrew K. Howorth
Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
Case Number: C2005-166

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: MARK ANTHONY COUGLE




MARK ANTHONY COUGLE (PRO SE)



 

Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS  

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 - Factual basis for plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: Mark Cougle pled guilty to grand larceny and was sentenced to three years with all three years suspended and probation for three years. When Cougle was found to have violated his probation, his suspended sentence was revoked, and he was ordered incarcerated for one year of his sentence with the remaining two years to be suspended. Cougle then brought his motion to vacate the judgment which the court denied. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Cougle argues that the plea was involuntary and unintelligently entered. His primary allegation is that his attorney coerced him into entering the plea by threatening to withdraw as his counsel. During the post-conviction relief hearing, Cougle’s attorney testified that he never threatened to withdraw as Cougle’s counsel if he did not take the plea. At the plea hearing, the trial court went through a very thorough questioning of Cougle to ensure that Cougle understood that he could have counsel appointed for trial if he could not afford one. The judge even stated that if Cougle reached a disagreement with his current counsel, the judge could appoint new counsel in his stead. Therefore, Cougle’s allegation that his plea was involuntary due to coercion is without merit. Issue 2: Factual basis for plea Cougle argues that there was no factual basis for the trial court to accept his guilty plea. Cougle’s counsel provided the brief recitation of the facts underlying the charge. These facts were enough to provide a trustworthy basis for accepting Cougle’s plea of guilty. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Cougle argues that his counsel was ineffective in violation of his right to counsel. The evidence in the record falls far short of overcoming the presumption that the attorney’s conduct is adequate.


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