Sneed v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CP-00840-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-CP-00840-COA ; 2007-CT-00840-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-11-2008
Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Amendment of indictment - 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: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-13-2007
Appealed from: QUITMAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Charles E. Webster
Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
Case Number: 2006-0080

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: BRIAN SNEED




BRIAN SNEED (PRO SE)



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY  

    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 - Amendment of indictment - Ineffective assistance of counsel

    Summary of the Facts: Brian Sneed pled guilty to two counts of burglary of a business. Sneed was sentenced as a habitual offender to seven years of imprisonment for Count I and seven years of imprisonment for Count II. Sneed filed a motion for post-conviction collateral relief which was denied. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Amendment of indictment Sneed argues that he was not served with or put on notice of the amended indictment, which charged him as a habitual offender. Sneed, who was represented by counsel, argues that he was unfairly surprised because he was not personally served with a copy of the amended indictment. However, as the circuit court held, there was no error in the State serving Sneed’s counsel with the motion to amend. In addition, Sneed’s claim of surprise is refuted by the transcript of his plea hearing. Sneed swore under oath that he understood that he was pleading guilty and would be sentenced as a habitual offender. Sneed also argues that the amended indictment charging him as a habitual offender was defective because it failed to set out the prior convictions necessary to sentence him as a habitual offender. Sneed offers no rule or other law that supports his proposition that it was improper for the State to list the convictions in an exhibit attached to its motion. Thus, the issue is without merit. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Sneed argues that his representation by counsel was ineffective, because counsel was obligated to inform him that he was being charged as a habitual offender and, at the least, request a hearing on the State’s motion to amend the indictment. Sneed offers only his own statement as proof of his claim of ineffective assistance. Thus, he has failed to meet his burden.


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