Busby v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-CP-01483-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CP-01483-COA ; 2006-CT-01483-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-15-2008 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea - Evidentiary hearing - Factual basis Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): ROBERTS, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-26-2006 Appealed from: Clarke County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Bailey Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2006-55(w) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DAVID CLAUDE BUSBY |
DAVID CLAUDE BUSBY (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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea - Evidentiary hearing - Factual basis |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Busby pled guilty to lustful touching of a minor. He was sentenced to fifteen years with eight years suspended, seven years to serve, and five years supervised probation. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Busby argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to inform him of all parts of his plea agreement. Busby fails to show how his counsel’s performance was ineffective and how this prejudiced his defense. It is clear from the guilty plea petition and the transcript of the guilty plea proceedings that counsel provided competent and reasonable professional assistance during all stages of the guilty plea proceedings. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Busby argues that his plea was involuntary because it was forced and made without knowledge of the consequences. A guilty plea is voluntarily and intelligently made where the defendant is informed of the nature of the charges against him, the maximum and minimum sentences he faces, and the effect the guilty plea will have on him. The record shows that Busby signed and filed a petition to enter a guilty plea, which advised him of his legal and constitutional rights and the consequences of the plea. The trial court found that Busby knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights to trial. There is no evidence in the record that Busby’s plea was induced by coercion. Issue 3: Evidentiary hearing Busby argues that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on these matters. Based on a review of the record, an evidentiary hearing is not required. There is no merit to either of Busby’s claims. Issue 4: Factual basis For the first time on appeal, Busby argues that there was not an adequate factual basis to accept his guilty plea. Case law requires that failure to bring an issue in the motion for post-conviction relief, bars it from being raised as a new ground on appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
