Harris v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CP-01360-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-CP-01360-COA ; 2007-CT-01360-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-12-2008
Opinion Author: Roberts, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Sufficiency of indictment - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Carlton, JJ.,
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-10-2007
Appealed from: OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Lee J. Howard
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF DENIED
Case Number: 2007-0090-CV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: CHRISTOPHER LASHAWN HARRIS




CHRISTOPHER LASHAWN HARRIS (PRO SE)



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • 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 - Voluntariness of plea - Sufficiency of indictment - Ineffective assistance of counsel

    Summary of the Facts: Christopher Harris pled guilty to possession of more than two grams but less than ten grams of cocaine. He was sentenced to sixteen years followed by five years of post-release supervision. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Harris argues his guilty plea was not voluntarily and intelligently entered because there is no factual basis in the record for his plea, he did not know his indictment was amended, and he was not informed of his right to appeal the sentence imposed. A guilty plea is voluntarily and intelligently entered when a defendant is fully informed of the charges against him and the consequences of his plea. Based upon Harris’s assertions within his petition to plead guilty and during his plea hearing, the trial court did not err in finding Harris’s claims regarding the lack of a factual basis for his guilty plea and ignorance of the indictment’s amendment to be without merit. In addition, a trial court is not required to inform a defendant who pleads guilty of his right to appeal the resultant sentence. Issue 2: Sufficiency of indictment Harris argues that his indictment was legally insufficient, because it failed to set forth the judicial district in which the indictment was brought. Harris’s indictment began by listing the crime for which he was being charged, the phrases “THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,” “CIRCUIT COURT,” and “OKTIBBEHA COUNTY,” and detailed the specifics of his alleged criminal activity. Finally, it listed the pertinent information regarding two previous convictions for possession of cocaine. This more than satisfies the requirements of URCCC 7.06 concerning a listing of the county and judicial district in which an indictment is brought. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Harris argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in a constitutional sense because his trial counsel did not raise the issues before the trial court that Harris now raises on appeal. Since there is no merit to any of the issues Harris raised on appeal, Harris’s trial counsel was not deficient in failing to raise the same issues as error in the trial court.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court