Morris v. State
Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01361-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-23-2010 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-14-2007 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Tomie Green Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 251-07-433(CIV) |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
Appellant: | GEORGE G. MORRIS |
JOSEPH PATRICK FRASCOGNA |
|
|
Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS |
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 |
Summary of the Facts: | George Morris pled guilty to gratification of lust and sexual battery. He was sentenced to ten years for gratification of lust, and twenty years, with ten years suspended, for sexual battery. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Morris argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at his sentencing hearing. Morris argues that his counsel erred by not objecting when the circuit court did not allow Morris to present two additional witnesses on his behalf during his sentencing. There is no evidence to suggest that two additional witnesses speaking on Morris’s behalf would have changed the outcome of his sentencing hearing. Morris has not shown that his son or minister would have offered any additional mitigating testimony that had not already been offered by his daughter or sister-in-law. Morris also argues that his guilty pleas were based on misrepresentations from his counsel regarding the length of his total sentence. A defendant must be advised of the maximum and minimum sentences that may be imposed and that a guilty plea involves a waiver of the right to a trial by jury, the right to confront adverse witnesses, and the right to protection against self incrimination. While under oath, Morris stated that he understood that by taking an open plea, the court could sentence him to the maximum term or sentence on each of the two counts against him. Morris also testified that no one told him that the judge would be more lenient in sentencing him if he pled guilty rather than proceeding to trial. This statement under oath contradicts his affidavit. Moreover, Morris affirmed under oath that he was satisfied with his representation by his counsel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court