Littleton v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01545-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01545-COA ; 2006-CT-01545-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-22-2008 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(3) - Withdrawal of guilty plea - Plea agreement - URCCC 8.04(A)(3) Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Irving, J., specially concurs with separate written opinion, joined in part by Roberts, J. Dissenting Author : GRIFFIS, J., without separate written opinion. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Roberts, J. without separate written opinion. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-31-2006 Appealed from: YAZOO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 25-9702 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | THOMAS LITTLETON |
GUY N. ROGERS |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY | ||
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 - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(3) - Withdrawal of guilty plea - Plea agreement - URCCC 8.04(A)(3) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Thomas Littleton pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to eight years. Littleton filed a motion to withdraw or set aside his guilty plea and sentence with the circuit court, which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 28(a)(3), the Court takes note of the issue in this case is a matter that is appropriately raised in a motion for post-conviction relief. Therefore, it will be treated as a request for post conviction relief to withdraw a guilty plea. A negotiated plea agreement between the State and a criminal defendant is a contractual relationship. Littleton and the district attorney had the intent to make an agreement, the capacity to make an agreement, and a mutual understanding of the agreement. However, what was lacking was the consideration for that agreement. Littleton gave up his right to plead not guilty in exchange for the prosecution recommending a sentence of house arrest. Because the law precludes house arrest for a conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, pursuant to section 47-5-1003(1), there was a failure of consideration flowing to Littleton. In essence, the promise made by the district attorney promised nothing and was, therefore, illusory. Therefore, the agreement must be considered an improper inducement to plead guilty in violation of URCCC 8.04(A)(3) and Littleton should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
