Owens v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00153-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00153-COA ; 2007-CA-00153-COA ; 2007-CT-00153-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-08-2008 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Evidentiary hearing - Detrimental reliance - Voluntariness of plea Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: ROBERTS, J. without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Dismissal; PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-29-2006 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Kosta N. Vlahos Disposition: DENIED MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Case Number: A2402-06-00017 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | CHARLES DOUGLAS OWENS |
JIM DAVIS |
|
|
| 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 - Evidentiary hearing - Detrimental reliance - Voluntariness of plea |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charles Owens pled guilty to one count of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault for robbing and shooting his employer. Owens was sentenced to thirty years for the armed robbery and ten years for the aggravated assault. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Evidentiary hearing Owens argues that at no point during the proceedings did the trial court advise him that the court did not have to follow the State’s sentencing recommendation and could sentence him as the court saw fit. Owens argument is without foundation. He was made aware that the trial judge was not bound by the State’s recommendation because it was clearly stated in his petition to plead guilty. Clearly stated in his petition to plead guilty is an acknowledgment made under oath that Owens was aware that the trial court was not bound to follow any sentencing recommendation made by the prosecution and that sentencing was completely at the discretion of the court. In addition, his sentence was within statutory guidelines. Issue 2: Detrimental reliance Owens argues that he detrimentally relied upon the prosecution’s recommendation of a twenty-five year sentence when he agreed to enter a guilty plea. In support of his argument, Owens quotes portions of the trial court’s discussion with Owens, his attorney, and the assistant district attorney, which occurred during the hearing on Owens’ attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel. However, there is nothing in the trial judge’s remarks that could have led Owens to believe that the judge was going to follow the State’s recommended sentence. Issue 3: Voluntariness of plea Owens argues that his guilty plea was not intelligently, voluntarily, and freely given because the trial court sentenced him to a term of years in excess of the State’s recommendation. The transcript from Owens’ plea hearing clearly shows that he testified under oath that he had read and understood his guilty plea petition, which stated in pertinent part that the trial judge was not required to follow the sentencing recommendation of the State and could sentence Owens to any term within the statutory limits. The transcript also shows that Owens was told the maximum and minimum sentences that he could receive for the crimes with which he was charged. Thus, Owens has failed to carry his burden of proof to show that his plea was not voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly given. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
