Elliott v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-CP-02157-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CP-02157-COA ; 2006-CT-02157-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-20-2008 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Illegal sentence - Due process Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-17-2006 Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2006-0136-CV1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CAMACHO ELLIOTT |
CAMACHO ELLIOTT (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE CHARLES W. MARIS |
|
|
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 - Illegal sentence - Due process |
| Summary of the Facts: | Camacho Elliott pled guilty as a habitual offender to possession of cocaine. He was sentenced to eight years. Elliott filed a petition for post-conviction relief which the court denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Elliott argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, because his attorney should have objected to his sentencing as a habitual offender at his plea hearing. By entering a voluntary plea of guilty, Elliott has waived any defects with respect to the indictment against him. In addition, Elliott’s sentencing as a habitual offender was an integral part of the State’s agreement with him, and Elliott himself was made to understand these facts by both his counsel and the circuit judge. Issue 2: Illegal sentence Elliott argues that he is serving an illegally enhanced sentence in violation of his constitutional rights. Elliott is clearly not entitled to relief since his sentence was increased precisely because of a prior conviction for the same offense. Issue 3: Due process Elliott argues that he was denied his right to due process because the circuit judge failed to inform him that he could appeal the sentence imposed on him as a result of his guilty plea despite the fact that he could not appeal the plea itself. While it is true that a defendant may appeal the sentence resulting from a plea of guilty independently of the plea itself, there is no corresponding requirement that the circuit court notify the defendant of that right during the plea process. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
