Moore v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CP-00434-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-17-2008 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Conflict of interest Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal; PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-08-2007 Appealed from: Benton County Circuit Court Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: B2006-021 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | CARLOS MOORE |
CARLOS MOORE (PRO SE) |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | BILLY L. GORE | ||
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 - Conflict of interest |
| Summary of the Facts: | Carlos Moore pled guilty to taking possession of or taking away a motor vehicle, simple robbery, and jail escape. He was sentenced to fifteen years, with eight years suspended, for simple robbery; five years for jail escape; and five years for vehicle theft, with all sentences running concurrently and three years of post-release supervision. Moore filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Moore argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, because his attorney failed to investigate potential defenses adequately and, instead, simply encouraged him to plead guilty, promised him a shorter sentence than the one he received, and had a conflict of interest because he represented another man whom Moore claims turned him in to the authorities. With regard to conflicts of interest, prejudice is presumed only if the defendant demonstrates that counsel actively represented conflicting interests and that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance. Moore has made no such showing. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Moore and the other man were charged as co-defendants. Moore has not demonstrated that his attorney owed a him duty to him to act in a way that could have been detrimental to the other man, or vice versa. Even assuming arguendo that an actual conflict of interest was found to exist, Moore has provided nothing other than his own allegations. Additionally, Moore acknowledged under oath that he was satisfied with his lawyer’s performance; that he was guilty of the crimes with which he was charged; and that his guilty plea was not the result of threats or coercion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
