Hope v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-KP-00981-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-08-2007
Opinion Author: BARNES, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Armed robbery - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-08-2005
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Bobby DeLaughter
Disposition: CONVICTED ON COUNT I-ARMED ROBBERY AND COUNT II-ARMED ROBBERY. SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC AS TO COUNT I AND THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC AS TO COUNT II. SENTENCES AS TO COUNT I AND COUNT II TO RUN CONCURRENTLY.
Case Number: 04-0-274-01 & 02

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: DANNY HOPE A/K/A DANNY HOPE, SR.




DANNY HOPE (PRO SE)



 

Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF  

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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: Danny Hope was convicted of two counts of armed robbery, and following a sentencing hearing conducted approximately two months later, Hope was sentenced to thirty years confinement upon each count, to run concurrently. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Hope argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He argues that , in the sentencing hearing, the circuit court relied upon an erroneous post-conviction sentencing report and sentenced Hope to a greater sentence than he would otherwise have received had the PSR accurately described his conviction. Hope’s trial attorney did not object or otherwise attempt to bring the alleged errors contained in the PSR to the attention of the circuit court. In the context of sentencing, Hope must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel’s deficient performance, his sentence would have been less harsh. The transcript of Hope’s sentencing hearing reflects that the trial court did not specifically refer to the two matters which Hope claims are erroneous. The trial court never specifically referred to the allegedly inaccurate portion of the PSR during the sentencing hearing colloquy, referring generally to the two prior convictions for robbery and referring also to a pending charge for armed robbery and a charge pending in federal court for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the allegedly erroneous portion of the PSR had any more of an impact on the sentence handed down by the trial judge than the accurate description of Hope’s conviction would have had. Therefore, Hope has failed to demonstrate any prejudice by his trial counsel’s failure to object to the errors allegedly contained in the PSR.


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