Cross v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00426-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-00426-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-08-2007 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Sentence Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: PCR; Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-16-2006 Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: DISMISSED WITHOUT HEARING. Case Number: 2006-0015 (C) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | EDNA R. CROSS |
IMHOTEP ALKEBU-LAN |
||
| 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 - Voluntariness of plea - Sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Edna Cross pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault. She was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment on each count. She filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the court denied. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Cross argues that she was confused by the proceedings and that she did not understand the possibility of receiving the maximum sentence and fine or that she waived her right to a direct appeal by pleading guilty. A plea is voluntary if the defendant knows what the elements are in the charge against him, including an understanding of the charge and its relation to him, the effect of the plea, and the possible sentence. The transcript of the guilty plea hearing shows that the trial court addressed all of the requirements to establish a knowing guilty plea, including the elements of the crime, the waiver of rights, and the minimum and maximum sentences. When Cross appeared to be uninformed of the consequences of her guilty plea – the possibility of consecutive sentences and the waiver of her right to appeal – the trial court consistently continued to address the perceived point of confusion with Cross until she stated that she understood the proceedings and until the trial court was satisfied that she understood the consequences of her guilty plea and the rights that she would waive if she did plead guilty. The trial court’s decision to proceed with the guilty plea in the face of Cross’ apparent initial misunderstandings was not clearly erroneous, as the trial court did explain the consequences of the guilty plea to Cross until she understood the proceedings. Cross also argues that the court erred in sentencing Cross after she maintained that she was not armed with a weapon during the incident that led to her indictment on charges of aggravated assault, statements that her counsel labeled as proclamations of innocence. The trial court did not err in proceeding with sentencing. Cross did not attempt to withdraw her guilty plea at the sentencing hearing, nor should the trial court have been required to raise the issue sua sponte in response to Cross’ allegations that her role in the crime was less than she previously stated. A guilty plea may be accepted, even when accompanied by protestations of innocence, if the evidence against the defendant is sufficient to sustain the guilty plea. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
