Middlebrook v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CP-00344-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-11-2007
Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Evidentiary hearing
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: 02-14-2006
Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert Helfrich
Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
Case Number: CI04-0329

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: ROGER LEE MIDDLEBROOK




ROGER LEE MIDDLEBROOK (PRO SE)



 

Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JACOB RAY  

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 - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Evidentiary hearing

Summary of the Facts: Roger Middlebrook pled guilty to the sale of cocaine. He was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment with five years to serve and ten years suspended. Middlebrook filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. Middlebrook appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Middlebrook argues that the conviction was based on two faulty pieces of evidence. While these allegations may have been valid concerns during a trial, they are of no consequence as Middlebrook pled guilty. The guilty plea constituted a waiver of those issues. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Middlebrook argues that his counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty and for failure to further investigate the background of the criminal informant. If the attorney believes that it is in his client’s best interest to plead guilty, it is his duty to inform him of that fact. Middlebrook has failed to demonstrate how counsel’s advice, which counsel thought was in Middlebrook’s best interest, was deficient. While Middlebrook states that a background check on the criminal informant would have revealed that he was a prior felon, he fails to explain how such information would have changed the outcome. The evidence against him was still strong since the videotape of Middlebrook selling cocaine still existed and the criminal informant could have potentially testified at trial. Issue 3: Evidentiary hearing Middlebrook argues that the trial court should have granted an evidentiary hearing on his motion for post-conviction relief. A post-conviction collateral relief petition which meets basic requirements is sufficient to mandate an evidentiary hearing unless it appears beyond doubt that the petitioner can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Here, Middlebrook alleged no set of facts in his motion that would entitle him to relief.


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