Callins v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CT-00071-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-CP-00071-COA ; 2005-CP-00071-COA ; 2005-CT-00071-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-21-2008 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. THE JUDGMENT OF THE ALCORN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING THE MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Plea agreement - Detrimental reliance - Evidentiary hearing - Section 99-39-11(2) - Guilty plea colloquy - URCCC 11.02 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Dissenting Author : Diaz, P.J., and Graves, J., without separate written opinion. 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: 09-27-2005 Appealed from: Alcorn County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: Alcorn County Circuit Court Denied the Motion for Post-Conviction Relief. District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR03-026 |
|
| Note: | This opinion reverses the COA opinion. See the COA opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO39515.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | OLAN CALLINS |
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 - Plea agreement - Detrimental reliance - Evidentiary hearing - Section 99-39-11(2) - Guilty plea colloquy - URCCC 11.02 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Olan Callins appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Callins detrimentally relied on the plea agreement, thus invalidating the penitentiary sentence imposed upon him. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Court of Appeals found that while Callins’ guilty plea was freely, knowingly, and voluntarily entered and that the judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing sentence, Callins was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether he detrimentally relied on the joint plea agreement between himself and the State of Mississippi. Section 99-39-11(2) provides that the trial judge may summarily dismiss a motion for post-conviction relief if it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the prisoner is not entitled to any relief. Here, the judge found that the allegations contained in Callins’ post-conviction relief motion were contradicted by Callins’ sworn testimony at the plea hearing before a prior judge, as revealed in the transcript of the plea hearing. Therefore, pursuant to the statute and case law, the judge was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Callins’ post-conviction relief motion. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals suggests trial judges, at the time of the guilty plea colloquy, declare that he/she does not intend to accept the sentence recommendation; and the trial judge must declare the specific sentence he/she intends to impose, without taking the matter under advisement and, many times, without the benefit of a presentence investigation report. According to the Court of Appeals, this information must be revealed to the defendant at the time of the plea hearing. The revised guilty plea colloquy suggested by the Court of Appeals would judicially abrogate the provisions of URCCC 11.02. The practical effect of the Court of Appeals’ approach via this revised plea colloquy would be that sentencing hearings after guilty pleas in which there exist sentence recommendations would become obsolete. The trial judge would be compelled to inform the defendant at the plea hearing as to whether he/she intended to accept the sentence recommendation. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
