Gladney v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00631-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-00631-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-08-2007 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Validity of indictment - Validity of plea Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CHANDLER, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-02-2006 Appealed from: Choctaw County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED. Case Number: 2005-0061-CV-M |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | LAMAR GLADNEY |
SYLVIA S. OWEN |
||
| 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 - Validity of indictment - Validity of plea |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lamar Gladney pled guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to thirty years. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Validity of indictment Gladney argues that the indictment failed to set out the judicial district where the charge originated or where the crime was alleged to have occurred. Not only does a valid guilty plea waive all non-jurisdictional defects in an indictment, but there were no defects in the indictment. Issue 2: Validity of plea Gladney argues that his plea is invalid because he was coerced and misinformed that if he did not enter a guilty plea that a jury would convict him, resulting in life imprisonment. A guilty plea is valid where it is entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. Gladney communicated to the trial judge that he had read and signed his petition to enter a plea of guilty, and that the statements in the petition were true. The trial judge then properly informed Gladney of the constitutional rights that he would waive by entering a guilty plea. Gladney’s admission to accomplishing what the State intended to prove at trial was a sufficient factual basis for the trial judge to accept Gladney’s guilty plea for the crime of armed robbery. Gladney argues that the trial judge misinformed him about his right to appeal his sentence. The trial judge never stated that Gladney would be prohibited from appealing his sentence. The specific comment made by the trial judge was that Gladney would have a right to appeal his conviction in the event he was convicted by a jury. The trial judge stated that such rights would be waived if Gladney entered a guilty plea. Both of these statements are correct statements of the law. Gladney argues that he was denied due process of law when the trial judge told him that he would not be subject to any early release, probation or parole because of the nature of the charge. However, the trial judge properly informed Gladney about his ineligibility for parole or early release. Gladney argues that he was misinformed by his attorney about what sentence he would receive if he went to trial. The record reflects that the exchange between Gladney and the trial judge corrected any misinformation Gladney had previously received. On the record questioning and explanation by the trial judge concerning the defendant’s rights and the consequences of a plea rendered a plea voluntary despite advice by an attorney that was given to the defendant. Gladney argues that his attorney never attempted to interview witnesses and coerced him into entering a guilty plea by stating he would receive life imprisonment if he went to trial. However, no argument or evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the integrity of the plea hearing proceeding has been compromised. Gladney argues that his sentence is excessive. The record reflects that Gladney was well aware of the sentence the trial court would impose upon him as a result of his guilty plea. The record also reflects that the trial judge was aware that Gladney was seventeen years of age at the time of his conviction and sentence. Absent some further misconduct, Gladney would have completed his term of imprisonment at the age of forty-seven. The sentence Gladney received does not exceed the statutory maximum sentence allowed and is therefore legal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
