Starks v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CP-01732-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-21-2008
Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, J.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-30-2007
Appealed from: OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr.
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED
Case Number: 2007-0189-CV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: WILLIE KEITH STARKS




WILLIE KEITH STARKS (PRO SE)



 

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: Willie Starks pled guilty to statutory rape. Starks filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Starks argues that his counsel was deficient, because counsel only filed one pre trial motion, counsel conducted no investigation, counsel conducted no interviews, and counsel only met with Starks one time. Starks supports this claim only by his own affidavit. A prisoner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit when the only proof offered of the claim is the prisoner's own affidavit. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Starks argues that his plea agreement was the product of threats and coercion, and it was not knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily given. A guilty plea is considered voluntary and intelligent if the defendant is advised about the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of the entry of the plea. Starks’ contention is refuted by his plea agreement and his plea colloquy.


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