Moore v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CP-02063-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-CP-02063-COA ; 2005-CT-02063-SCT ; 2005-CT-02063-SCT ; 2005-CT-02063-SCT
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-17-2007
Opinion Author: Griffis, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded
Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Factual basis for plea - Evidentiary hearing
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, P.J., Irving, Chandler, Barnes and Ishee, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Roberts and Carlton, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Myers, P.J., dissents without separate written opinion.
Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-11-2005
Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert Bailey
Disposition: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED.
Case Number: 05-CV-070(b)
Note: This opinion was reversed by the Supreme Court on 6/19/2008. The Supreme Court opinion may be found at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO48703.pdf
  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: FREDRICK MOORE




 FREDRICK MOORE (PRO SE)



  
Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DESHUN T. MARTIN  
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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Factual basis for plea - Evidentiary hearing
Summary of the Facts: Fredrick Moore pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to two years, with one year and 364 days suspended, and one year of post-release supervision. Moore filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was dismissed. Moore appeals.
Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Moore argues that his attorney was ineffective because he failed to be abreast of the proceedings and the law, did not explain the meaning of the plea, and did not investigate the facts. Moore argues that he was illegally searched and that the gun should have been suppressed, and that this is a matter which the defense counsel should have been aware of and should have informed the court. The officer stopped Moore because his vehicle had one of two taillights that was not working. By statute, every vehicle shall be equipped with at least one working rear lamp. As Moore’s vehicle was in compliance, and it is clear that what the police observed did not constitute a violation of the cited traffic law, there was no probable cause to stop his car. The subsequent search was illegal, and the gun should have been suppressed. Moore has made a showing that his attorney was deficient for recommending the plea instead of filing a motion to suppress and is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this issue. With regard to explaining the plea, the record shows that when the trial court explained the meaning of such a guilty plea at the plea hearing, Moore responded that this was what he understood he was doing. With regard to his claim regarding the attorney’s investigation, Moore does not allege that his attorney would have done anything differently had he investigated these facts. Issue 2: Factual basis for plea Moore argues there was no factual basis to support the plea, because he did not admit to the crime. The officer’s testimony would have been sufficient evidence to support a conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. A reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Moore knew that the gun was in the car. Issue 3: Evidentiary hearing Moore argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. A defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing where the affidavits presented directly conflict with the testimony in the plea hearing. Moore’s claims were in direct conflict with the record.


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