Madden v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CP-00235-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CP-00235-COA ; 2007-CT-00235-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-19-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Plea hearing transcript - Voluntariness of plea - Factual basis for plea - Habitual offender status - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal; PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-30-2006 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Kosta N. Vlahos Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: A2401-2005-87 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | WILLIE LEE MADDEN, JR. |
WILLIE LEE MADDEN, JR. (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DESHUN TERRELL 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 - Plea hearing transcript - Voluntariness of plea - Factual basis for plea - Habitual offender status - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Lee Madden, Jr. pled guilty to transfer of a controlled substance. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to fifteen years. The circuit court denied Madden’s motion to receive a free copy of the plea hearing transcript. Madden then filed a motion for post-conviction collateral relief which the court dismissed. Madden appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Plea hearing transcript Madden argues that the transcript of the plea hearing will prove many of his post-conviction collateral relief claims, including the involuntariness of his plea, the lack of a factual basis for the plea, and the fact that he was never advised of the minimum and maximum sentences for the crime charged. Only after a prisoner’s motion for post-conviction collateral relief has withstood summary dismissal under section 99-39-11(2) may he be entitled to a transcript. The issuance of the transcript is then based upon a showing of good cause and is within the discretion of the trial judge. Since Madden’s motion was summarily dismissed by the court, Madden is not entitled to a copy of the transcript. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Madden argues that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he was under the influence of medication that severely impaired his judgment and also because he was under the severe emotional stress caused by sickness and death of members of his immediate family. Madden also argues that he was not advised of the maximum and minimum sentences nor the nature of the crime for which he was charged. A plea is voluntary and intelligent when the defendant is informed of the charges against him and the consequences of his plea. Madden signed and presented to the circuit court a petition to enter a plea of guilty. The petition clearly states the minimum and maximum sentences to be zero to thirty years for the transfer of a controlled substance. It also states that Madden will be sentenced as a habitual offender and that the sentence will run day-for-day. Madden indicated in the petition that his physical and mental health was satisfactory and that he was not under the influence of any drugs or intoxicants at the time of the document’s signing. Thus, Madden’s argument that his plea was involuntary is contradicted by the plea petition. Issue 3: Factual basis for plea Madden argues that the circuit court failed to establish a factual basis for his guilty plea rendering such plea void as a matter of law. The mere fact that the factual basis does not provide all the details which may be produced at trial does not render the guilty plea fatal. If sufficiently specific, an indictment or information can be used as the sole source of the factual basis for the plea. The indictment specifically includes the elements of the crime. In his plea petition, Madden swore that he had been advised of the nature of the charge and that he in fact “sold the cocaine to the undercover officer near [his] home.” Thus, there was a sufficient factual basis to support his conviction for the sale of cocaine. Issue 4: Habitual offender status Madden argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proof because it did not establish his prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. Madden’s plea petition states that he has been convicted of one or more felonies in the past, specifically two convictions for possession of a controlled substance during 1995. Such statement is consistent with the indictment. Because Madden knowingly and voluntarily entered a guilty plea and in his plea petition admitted his convictions for the two prior felonies listed in the indictment, the circuit court properly sentenced him as a habitual offender. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Madden argues that his attorney failed to pursue a speedy trial violation, inform the court about the circumstance of Madden’s two prior convictions, advise Madden of the consequences of pleading guilty as a habitual offender, adequately investigate the charge and establish an affirmative defense, and present mitigating factors to the court before sentencing. A valid guilty plea operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional rights or defects which are incident to trial including the right to a speedy trial, whether of constitutional or statutory origin. With regard to his claim that he was previously twice convicted for the same crime and those convictions were used to sentence him as a habitual offender, Madden offers no evidence beyond his own statements to prove this allegation. In fact, in his plea petition, he admitted having been convicted of two prior felonies for possession of a controlled substance. He also offers only his allegations with regard his claim concerning the consequences of pleading guilty. For failure to investigate to be ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must state with particularity what the investigation would have revealed and how it would have altered the outcome. The only evidence that Madden offers to show what the investigation would have revealed is his own unsworn allegations in his brief. With regard to his allegation based on his counsel’s failure to present mitigating factors about his health problems and mental condition, the evidence in the record is contrary to his assertion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
