Mitchner v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01750-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01750-COA ; 2008-CT-01750-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-03-2009 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., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-20-2008 Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr. Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2006-0111-CV1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RONNIE MITCHENER |
STEPHEN L. BEACH |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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: | Ronnie Mitchener pled guilty to one count of kidnaping, for which the circuit court sentenced Mitchener to twenty years. Mitchener filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Mitchener argues that his attorney was ineffective in failing to ensure that testimony at the sentencing hearing was transcribed for appellate review. This argument was previously held to be procedurally barred as raised for the first time on appeal and without merit because Mitchener failed to identify any resulting prejudice. Presented again, this argument is both procedurally barred and barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Mitchener also argues that his attorney was ineffective in misrepresenting the sentence Mitchener would receive if he pleaded guilty. This argument is without merit because Mitchener essentially asks the Court to re-weigh the credibility of the witnesses. This exceeds the scope of the Court's review. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Mitchener argues that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily because it was induced by a misrepresentation of his counsel as to the sentence Mitchener would receive if he pleaded guilty. There is no basis for disturbing the circuit court’s findings of fact on this issue. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
