Thomas v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CP-02064-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-CP-02064-COA ; 2007-CT-02064-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-23-2008
Opinion Author: Ishee, J.
Holding: AFFIRMED

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

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-19-2007
Appealed from: OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Lee J. Howard
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED
Case Number: 2007-0436-CV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: WILLIE S. THOMAS




WILLIE S. THOMAS (PRO SE)



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS  

    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 - Evidentiary hearing

    Summary of the Facts: Willie Thomas pled guilty to two counts of sale of cocaine. Thomas was sentenced to two twenty-year sentences, which were to run consecutively. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Thomas argues that his counsel was ineffective, because he was coerced by his attorney to plead guilty to the two offenses. Thomas has failed to provide any evidence that purports to show that his two pleas of guilty were coerced. During the plea hearing, Thomas was specifically asked whether he was coerced into making the pleas to which he responded that he was not. Additionally, Thomas testified that he reviewed the case with his attorney and was satisfied with the help and assistance that his attorney provided to him. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Thomas argues that his plea of guilty was not made voluntarily because he was misinformed with regard to the maximum sentence that he could receive, and he was coerced into pleading guilty by his attorney. A guilty plea is voluntary and intelligent only if the defendant has been advised concerning the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of the plea. Thomas’s blanket accusation on appeal that he was misinformed and deceived as to the maximum sentence that he was eligible to receive is contradicted by the record. Statements given during plea hearings are presumptively valid. Issue 3: Evidentiary hearing Thomas argues that he should have been granted an evidentiary hearing before the court denied his post-conviction-relief motion. An evidentiary hearing is not required where the allegations in the post-conviction relief motion are specific and conclusive. The trial court's dismissal is consistent with the evidence and testimony presented in the record.


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