Hynes v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00681-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-29-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-26-2007 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Betty W. Sanders Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2006-0110-M |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DESMOND HYNES |
ERIC CHARLES HAWKINS |
|
|
| 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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea |
| Summary of the Facts: | Desmond Hynes pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute while in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to thirty years. Hynes was brought before the court for a second time, and the court set aside the original sentence of thirty years due to a mistake made at the first plea hearing. After accepting Hynes’s guilty plea a second time, the circuit court sentenced Hynes to twenty years, with fifteen years to serve and five years suspended pursuant to five years of post-release supervision. Hynes filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Hynes argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, because his attorney failed to investigate the ownership of the weapon used to add the firearm enhancement to his charge or file a motion to dismiss the firearm enhancement and object to the conflict of interest created because a co-defendant’s attorney initially represented both Hynes and the two other co-defendants in this case. The evidence referred to by Hynes – the lack of his fingerprints on the guns and the lack of possession of a gun on his person when he was arrested – does not prove that Hynes was not in possession of the firearm at the time the crime was committed. As the circuit court held, the State could produce evidence that Hynes was in possession of a firearm at the time of the crime, either individually or while acting in concert with other. In addition, Hynes received the exact same sentence as one of his co-defendants who pleaded guilty to the same crime without the firearm enhancement. With regard to his claim about a conflict of interest, Hynes has not proven that he would not have entered a guilty plea but for his counsel’s failure to object to the other attorney’s representation of a co-defendant. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea There was some confusion about the minimum and maximum sentences during Hynes’ first plea hearing. This mistake caused the circuit judge to vacate the original sentence of thirty years and bring Hynes back for a second plea hearing. Hynes argues that he remained unaware of the maximum and minimum sentences during the second plea hearing. The record shows that Hynes was given time to confer with his attorney and that he initialed his plea petition, which correctly stated the maximum and minimum sentences. Despite the initial confusion over the firearm enhancement and the maximum and minimum sentences, it is clear from the record that Hynes understood the consequences of his plea. After Hynes was allowed to consider his options, which were clearly laid out by the circuit judge, Hynes unequivocally stated that he wanted to plead guilty and accept the offer recommended by the State. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
