Callins v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-00071-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CP-00071-COA ; 2005-CT-00071-SCT ; 2005-CT-00071-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-17-2007 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: The judgment of the Alcorn County Circuit Court is reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Improper sentence - Evidentiary hearing Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving, J. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. dissents with separate written opinion Dissent Joined By : Myers, P.J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-27-2005 Appealed from: Alcorn County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: DENIED MOTION FOR POST -CONVICTION RELIEF. Case Number: CR03-026 |
|
| Note: | This opinion was later reversed by the Supreme Court on 2/21/2008. See the SCT opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO47005.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | OLAN CALLINS |
OLAN CALLINS (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: | Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Improper sentence - Evidentiary hearing |
| Summary of the Facts: | Olan Callins pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine. He was sentenced to twenty years, with twelve years suspended, five years post-release supervision, a fine of five thousand dollars and court costs. Callins filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Callins is at odds with the fact that the sentencing judge elected not to follow the recommendation contained in the plea bargain. However, in most cases, such a recommendation or request will not be binding upon the court. The record plainly shows that Callins was asked all required questions and expressed his understanding of the charges against him, the rights he was waiving in pleading guilty and the fact that the court was not bound by the recommendation of the State. Issue 2: Improper sentence Callins argues that the sentencing judge improperly considered certain statements made by Callins in arriving at his sentence. Prior to entering a guilty plea, Callins submitted an affidavit of indigence in an effort to acquire the services of a court appointed attorney. Within the affidavit, he stated that he was unemployed. However, during his plea hearing, he stated that he had been gainfully employed for the past seven years. Also, Callins stated during his plea hearing that he had been previously convicted of only one felony but a pre-sentence investigation report listed the number of Callins’s prior felony convictions at six. In sentencing Callins, the lower court mentioned the facts that Callins had perjured himself concerning his employment and prior convictions, but also took into consideration the nature of the charge against him, the minimum and maximum sentences provided by statute for the crime to which Callins pled guilty and his previous felony history. As the sentence imposed upon Callins is within statutory limits, this issue is without merit. Issue 3: Evidentiary hearing Callins argues that he should have been afforded an evidentiary hearing on his motion for post-conviction relief. No evidentiary hearing is required when the sworn testimony of the defendant during the plea hearing is in complete contradiction to the allegations made in a motion for post-conviction relief. In his motion, Callins indicated that both his attorney and the assistant district attorney that prosecuted his case would testify that they, as Callins did, expected the judge to follow the State’s recommendation. However, Callins failed to supply the trial court with affidavits from those individuals stating as such. Nevertheless, the record contains sufficient evidence to warrant an evidentiary hearing. The supreme court has held that agreements between the State and defendants must be upheld by the trial court where a criminal defendant has detrimentally relied upon the agreement. As part of Callins’s plea bargain, he agreed to forfeit approximately $30,000 of personal property. During Callins’s sentencing hearing, his attorney informed the trial court that Callins had fully cooperated with the State concerning the forfeiture. Thus, the record clearly shows that an evidentiary hearing is required in order to determine whether Callins satisfied his obligations with respect to the plea agreement. The trial judge who was originally involved in the case allowed a continuance of Callins’s sentencing for the sole purpose of granting him additional time to complete his end of the agreement. As such, if the trial court determines that Callins has substantially complied with his obligations under the plea agreement to his detriment, then the trial court is duty bound to sentence him consistent with his bargain. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
