Diggs v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-CP-01546-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CP-01546-COA ; 2008-CT-01546-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-09-2010 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Earned time - Section 47-7-3(1)(d)(ii) - Indictment - Right to appeal - URCCC 8.04(A)(4) - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Factual basis Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., 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: 08-25-2008 Appealed from: Lawrence County Circuit Court Judge: R.I. Prichard, III Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: 2008-110P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | TIMOTHY WAYNE DIGGS |
PRO SE |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY, 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 - Earned time - Section 47-7-3(1)(d)(ii) - Indictment - Right to appeal - URCCC 8.04(A)(4) - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Factual basis |
| Summary of the Facts: | Timothy Diggs pled guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to thirty, with twenty years suspended and five years of post-release supervision. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the court dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Earned time Diggs argues that his constitutional rights were violated because he was sentenced to serve a mandatory ten-year sentence without the benefit of earned time. Section 47-7-3(1)(d)(ii) dictates an inmate’s parole eligibility and provides that any inmate convicted of armed robbery on or after October 1, 1994, shall not be eligible for parole. Thus, it logically follows that since an offender serving a sentence for an armed robbery committed on or after October 1, 1994, can never serve the mandatory time required for parole eligibility, he is not eligible to accrue earned-time credits. Thus, it is clear that Diggs is not entitled to accumulate earned-time credit. Issue 2: Indictment Diggs argues that his guilty plea was not valid because he was not indicted for the offense of armed robbery and that the information did not notify him that the first ten years of his sentence was mandatory and allegedly failed to cite the charging statute. Diggs executed a sworn waiver of indictment and consented to be proceeded against by criminal information. Thus, Diggs was lawfully proceeded against by criminal information in accordance with Article 3, Section 27 of the Mississippi Constitution. Any complaints regarding non-jurisdictional defects in an indictment are waived upon the defendant’s entry of a guilty plea. Issue 3: Right to appeal Diggs argues that he was denied due process of law because the trial court failed to inform him that he could seek a direct appeal of his allegedly illegal sentence. Pursuant to URCCC 8.04(A)(4), the trial court is not obligated to inform a defendant of his right to appeal his sentence. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Diggs argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to interview witnesses in preparation for trial. However, Diggs has failed to provide a list of witnesses or any affidavits of the witnesses who would have testified on his behalf. Diggs also argues that his trial counsel coerced him into pleading guilty and that his trial counsel failed to properly advise him of the potential sentence he could receive for the crime. However, the plea colloquy clearly belies Diggs’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. Issue 5: Factual basis Diggs argues that he was wrongly convicted of armed robbery because the trial court failed to establish a sufficient factual basis to demonstrate that he was guilty of the offense. In the plea colloquy, Diggs explained to the trial court that he was pleading guilty because he was indeed guilty of armed robbery. Through Diggs’s own testimony, he admitted that he was waiting outside in the car while the robbery took place. The law is clear that an accessory to armed robbery is just as guilty as the principal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
