Watts v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CP-00708-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CP-00708-COA ; 2007-CT-00708-SCT ; 2007-CT-00708-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-01-2008 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Illegal sentence - Section 47-7-33(1) - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J., AND IRVING, J. without separate written opinion Procedural History: Dismissal; PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-12-2007 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Helfrich Disposition: DISMISSED MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF Case Number: CI06-0201 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | CARL DEWAYNE WATTS |
CARL DEWAYNE WATTS (PRO SE) |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: 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 - Illegal sentence - Section 47-7-33(1) - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Carl Watts pled guilty to the sale of cocaine. His thirty-year sentence was suspended provided that he comply with several conditions. Watts did not comply, and his suspended sentence was revoked. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Illegal sentence Watts argues that the promise of a suspended sentence was the inducement for him to plead guilty to the charge against him and that if he had known that the suspended sentence was illegal, he would not have pled guilty. Section 47-7-33(1) prohibits convicted felons from receiving suspension and then being placed on probation. The conditions placed on Watts’s suspended sentence did not equate to Watts being placed on probation. The trial court retains the power to revoke the suspended sentence and impose the original prison term. Thus, Watts’ argument is without merit. In addition, because the suspended sentence did not prejudice Watts, he cannot now attack it. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Watts argues that his attorney failed to advise him properly regarding the legality of the suspended sentence and the banishment. Watts initialed the paragraph on his petition to enter a guilty plea that he was satisfied with the advice and help his attorney had provided. He acknowledged that his attorney advised him of the charges against him and the possible defenses, as well as the rights he waived by pleading guilty. There is no deficiency in Watts’s attorney bargaining for and obtaining a lenient sentence for Watts. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
