Brown v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01342-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-21-2007 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery, Conspiracy to commit armed robbery & Aggravated assault - Evidentiary hearing - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: CARLTON, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-29-2006 Appealed from: PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: DENIED MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. Case Number: 06-184-PCS |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DANNY BROWN |
WILLIAM E. GOODWIN |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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: | Armed robbery, Conspiracy to commit armed robbery & Aggravated assault - Evidentiary hearing - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Danny Brown pled guilty to armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and aggravated assault. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Evidentiary hearing Brown argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that he was denied the benefit of his bargain with the prosecution. Not every motion for post-conviction relief filed in the trial court must be afforded a full adversarial hearing. If a prisoner's motion for post-conviction relief does not contain any affidavits, other than the prisoner's own to support the prisoner's allegations, then the motion may be dismissed. While the “Recommended Sentence” agreed to by the prosecution and Brown contains a requirement that Brown testify against another person, there is no indication in the record that Brown did so other than the unsupported statement in Brown’s brief. Without the benefit of affidavits by those with personal knowledge testifying to the issue of whether Brown did fulfill some additional obligation, or any hint in the record to such a fact, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brown’s motion without granting an evidentiary hearing. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Brown argues that his trial attorney was ineffective in that he did not object to the trial court’s sentence. Brown essentially argues that his trial attorney was ineffective as a result of his failure to bring to the sentencing court’s attention the facts of his plea agreement. However, the lower court was fully apprised of the State recommendation as to Brown. In addition, Brown’s attorney was not ineffective in failing to argue facts of which there is no proof. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
