Keith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-CP-01070-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CP-01070-COA ; 2006-CT-01070-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-20-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Criminal matter - Supporting affidavits - Factual basis - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal; PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-05-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: 251-05-234-CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | CLARENCE MARIO KEITH |
CLARENCE MARIO KEITH (PRO SE) |
|
|
| 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 - Criminal matter - Supporting affidavits - Factual basis - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Clarence Keith filed a motion for post-conviction relief following his guilty pleas for armed robbery and manslaughter. The trial court dismissed Keith’s motion. Keith appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Criminal matter Keith argues that the court erroneously found that Keith filed his motion as a criminal matter. This issue is moot since the trial court nonetheless examined Keith’s petition. Issue 2: Supporting affidavits It appears that Keith argues that the trial court should not have reached the merits of his petition because he did not include supporting affidavits. It is the duty of the petitioner to populate his motion for post-conviction relief with not only the sworn affidavits of those witnesses that presumably validate his claims, but the petitioner’s own sworn affidavit as well. However, the fact that the requisite affidavits are missing does not preclude a trial court from examining a motion for post-conviction relief and ruling on its merits. Issue 3: Factual basis Keith argues that the factual basis for his guilty pleas to manslaughter and armed robbery was not sufficient. The factual summary expressed by the State, and agreed to by Keith, satisfies all elements of both crimes. It shows that Keith intended to take the victim’s automobile through the exhibition of a deadly weapon, that Keith did, in fact, take the automobile through force, and that Keith shot the victim who died as a result his wounds. Issue 4: Voluntariness of plea Keith argues that his trial attorney’s prediction as to the sentence Keith would receive had he gone to trial was erroneous, and as a result, his guilty pleas were coerced and involuntary given. An otherwise voluntarily and intelligently entered plea of guilty may not be invalidated by a defendant’s reliance on his trial counsel’s accurate advice. Keith also argues that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently made because he was not informed that he would not be eligible for parole from the sentence accompanying his guilty plea for armed robbery. However, a defendant need not be informed of ineligibility for parole before entering a plea of guilty. The transcript of Keith’s plea hearing shows that Keith was never given any information regarding the prospects of parole in relation to his guilty pleas, erroneous or otherwise. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Keith argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. His claim is without merit. Keith argues that he would not have pled guilty had his trial counsel informed him that the State should have charged him with carjacking rather than manslaughter and armed robbery. While Keith’s admitted actions certainly qualify as an armed carjacking under section 97-3-117(2), the issue of whether Keith should have been charged with the crime is moot. When a defendant’s actions constitute a crime under more than one statute, the State is not obligated to pursue criminal charges under the statute with the lesser penalty, but may choose any applicable statute so long as its choice is clear. The State was well within its executory discretion in choosing not to charge Keith with armed carjacking. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
