Jones v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00133-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-04-2008 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Factual basis for plea - Evidentiary hearing - Competency to enter plea - Revocation of post-release supervision - Excessive sentence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal; PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-19-2006 Appealed from: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WAS DISMISSED. Case Number: CV06-295PFM |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | PATRICK JONES |
CHARLES E. MILLER |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND | ||
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 - Competency to enter plea - Revocation of post-release supervision - Excessive sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Patrick Jones pled guilty to one count of simple assault on a police officer and was sentenced to five years. He was given credit for time served with the balance suspended in lieu of serving four years of post-release supervision. Jones violated the terms of his post-release supervision and was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Jones argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the trial court because his attorney allegedly did not address his available defenses and the issues of change of venue and probable cause. Jones has produced no evidence which would show that, but for his attorney’s errors, the outcome of his trial would have been different. Jones, in a bare statement, alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Additionally, Jones failed to include a sworn affidavit to support his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or explain why it was not included with his post-conviction relief motion. Issue 2: Factual basis for plea Jones argues that there was no factual basis for his guilty plea and that he was actually innocent because he had a severe chemical dependency. Jones admitted committing simple assault on a police officer, and pleaded guilty. A factual basis for a plea may be established by the admission of the defendant. Jones has failed to provide any evidence indicating that his guilty plea was not voluntarily and intelligently given. Issue 3: Evidentiary hearing Jones argues that the trial court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing on his post-conviction relief motion. A post-conviction claim for relief is properly dismissed without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing where it is manifestly without merit. Jones failed to show by an affidavit, or otherwise, that there was a legitimate basis or reasonable evidence to provide him relief. Issue 4: Competency to enter plea Jones argues he was incompetent to enter a guilty plea because he had a pre-existing medical condition that impaired his mental ability. There is no evidence in the record indicating that Jones was mentally incapable of pleading guilty, nor has Jones presented any new evidence or arguments that call his mental capacity at the time of pleading into question. Jones has failed to show that his guilty plea was not voluntarily and intelligently made. Issue 5: Revocation of post-release supervision Jones argues that the trial court committed error by revoking his post-release supervision. In order to revoke probation, the supreme court has held it must be shown that the defendant more likely than not violated the terms of his probation. Jones’ probation officer testified at the hearing that Jones had violated his probation on several different occasions. Jones also acknowledged at the hearing that he had tested positive for marijuana. Thus, the trial court did not err in finding Jones violated the terms of his post-release supervision. Issue 6: Excessive sentence Jones argues that his sentence to serve five years constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Sentencing is within the complete discretion of the trial court and not subject to appellate review if it is within the limits prescribed by statute. Jones received the statutory maximum of five years for his simple assault on a police officer. He has failed to make an initial showing that there was a disproportionate sentence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
