Moore v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CT-02063-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-CP-02063-COA ; 2005-CP-02063-COA ; 2005-CT-02063-SCT ; 2005-CT-02063-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2008 Opinion Author: CARLSON, J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Forfeiture of accrued earned time Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ. Dissenting Author : GRAVES, J., without separate written opinion. Dissenting Author : DICKINSON, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : DIAZ, P.J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-11-2005 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Bailey Disposition: Moore plead guilty to the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. The Lauderdale County Circuit Court, Judge imposed a sentence to be served consecutively to a sentence previously imposed pursuant to a probation-revocation hearing. Moore filed a post-conviction-relief motion, which subsequently was denied by Judge Bailey. On appeal, this case was assigned to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's denial of Moore's post-conviction-relief motion and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of Moore's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. The court of appeals denied the state's motion for rehearing. District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 05-CV-070(b) |
|
| Note: | This opinion reverses the previous opinion by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals opinion may be found at ttp://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO38709.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | FREDRICK MOORE |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS, JR. |
|
|
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 - Forfeiture of accrued earned time |
| Summary of the Facts: | Fredrick Moore pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon. Moore filed a post-conviction-relief motion which was denied. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of Moore’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel The Court of Appeals found that Moore was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his trial attorney was guilty of rendering ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to attempt to suppress the fruits of the search of Moore’s vehicle. From the totality of the record, the officer had an objective, reasonable basis for believing that Moore was in violation of the law for driving a vehicle on a public street with only one operative tail light. It necessarily follows that the search of Moore’s vehicle which produced a Hi-Point .380 caliber handgun was lawful. Had Moore’s case gone to trial, the trial court would not have committed error by allowing the handgun into evidence. Thus, Moore’s trial counsel cannot be found to have rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress this evidence. The Court of Appeals erred in finding that Moore had made a prima facie showing that he was denied ineffective assistance of counsel. Issue 2: Forfeiture of accrued earned time Upon dismissing the post-conviction-relief petition, the trial court ordered the Mississippi Department of Corrections to forfeit sixty days of Moore’s accrued earned time. The purpose of such forfeitures is to reduce frivolous filings on the part of incarcerated individuals, whether literate or illiterate, pro se or represented by counsel. Thus, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in sanctioning Moore. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
