Nichols v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-00111-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-01-2007
Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Competency to stand trial - URCCC 9.06 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Amendment of indictment
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J.
Procedural History: PCR; Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-07-2005
Appealed from: Itawamba County Circuit Court
Judge: Thomas J. Gardner
Disposition: DISMISSED MOTION FOR POST - CONVICTION RELIEF.
Case Number: CV05-180(G)I

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: JOHNNY P. NICHOLS




WILLIAM C. STENNETT



 

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 - Competency to stand trial - URCCC 9.06 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Amendment of indictment

Summary of the Facts: Johnny Nichols pled guilty to kidnaping and attempted sexual battery. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Nichols argues that as a result of his alleged diminished mental capacity his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily given. A defendant must be advised of the charge against him and the consequences of pleading guilty if his plea is to be considered voluntary and intelligent. During his plea colloquy, Nichols was informed of the nature of the charges against him and the consequences of his plea of guilty. Additionally, he was advised of the minimum and maximum penalties for kidnaping and attempted sexual assault. Thus, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Competency to stand trial Nichols argues that he was not competent to stand trial, because he has a history of mental illness. Nichols was questioned regarding his level of understanding of the proceedings and consequences of his guilty plea. This was buttressed with Nichols’s attorney’s statement regarding Nichols’s ability to understand the proceedings. Also, the sentencing court noted, in finding that Nichols had entered his guilty pleas knowingly and voluntarily, that it had the opportunity to observe Nichols during the two-day trial on the aggravated assault cause. While URCCC 9.06 requires the court to hold a competency hearing if it determines that reasonable grounds exist for such, a thorough reading of the record shows that reasonable grounds did not exist. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Nichols argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel during his aggravated assault trial, plea hearing and joint sentencing in that his trial counsel failed to demand a competency hearing. From the trial court’s observations explained during Nichol’s sentencing, Nichols’s trial counsel’s statements and Nichols’s own statements, there is no indication that his competency was ever in question or hindered his defense. Issue 4: Amendment of indictment Nichols argues that the court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictment and that the amended indictment was fatally defective. The amended indictment was identical except the phrase “thereby manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life” was deleted. The phrase “under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life” is not a necessary element to a charge of aggravated assault.


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