Watts v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CP-00291-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-29-2008 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Appointed counsel - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Defective indictment - Evidentiary hearing Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-29-2007 Appealed from: Copiah County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WAS DENIED Case Number: 2007-5 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JAMAR WATTS |
JAMAR WATTS (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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 - Appointed counsel - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Defective indictment - Evidentiary hearing |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jamar Watts pled guilty to murder. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Appointed counsel Watts argues that he is entitled to appointed counsel because an appeal from the denial of a PCR is not a post-conviction proceeding. An appeal from a final judgment denying post-conviction relief is provided for by the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act, and there is no right to appointed counsel. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Watts argues that he pled guilty because of a promise from the assistant district attorney that if he cooperated with the prosecution, he would get twenty years. A plea is considered voluntarily and intelligently given if the defendant is advised about the nature of the charge and the consequences of the entry of the plea. Whatever Watts may have thought at the time of his confession, the plea petition and plea hearing transcript belie the notion that Watts thought he was eligible for a twenty-year sentence at the time he decided to plead guilty. The record unambiguously reflects that, at the time Watts pleaded guilty, he was fully informed that the only available sentence for the crime of murder was life imprisonment. The record further reflects that this was a favorable arrangement for Watts. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Watts argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to investigate his alibi defense, failed to challenge the admissibility of his confession, failed to challenge his defective indictment, erroneously advised him that he would be sentenced to twenty years if he pleaded guilty, and instructed him to lie to the court at the plea hearing. At the time counsel was appointed for Watts, he had already confessed to the crime, and the attorney reasonably directed his attention to Watts's options given the fact that he had confessed. Counsel's failure to file certain motions, call certain witnesses, ask certain questions, or make certain objections fall within the ambit of trial strategy and do not give rise to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Watts' sworn statements at the plea hearing and in his sworn petition to enter a plea of guilty that Watts was fully aware of the mandatory life sentence for murder at the time he decided to plead guilty. Therefore, Watts has not shown that he would not have pled guilty but for his attorney's erroneous advice. Issue 4: Defective indictment Watts argues that his indictment was defective because it was untimely filed and that the court lacked jurisdiction over him. Not only was Watts' indictment jurisdictionally sound, but the defendant's entry of a valid guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the indictment. Issue 5: Evidentiary hearing Watts argues that the circuit court should have granted an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of his claims. No hearing is required when, based on the record of the guilty plea hearing, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to no relief. It is clear from the record that Watts is entitled to no relief. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
