Taylor v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-02005-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-09-2010 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Factual basis for plea - Evidentiary hearing - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Cruel and unusual punishment Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: PCR; Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF; Dismissal |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-05-2008 Appealed from: TATE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: CV2008-274BT |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | PAUL TAYLOR |
CHARLES E. MILLER |
|
|
| 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 - Factual basis for plea - Evidentiary hearing - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Cruel and unusual punishment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Paul Taylor pled guilty to three counts of the sale of morphine. He was sentenced to nineteen years, with ten years suspended and nine years to serve. Taylor filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Taylor argues that his trial attorney was ineffective, because he did not address the issues of jurisdiction, Taylor’s mental condition, severance, and other issues. However, Taylor offers no evidence to support his assertion that his trial attorney was ineffective. Taylor stated under oath that he was satisfied with his attorney and that he was not coerced into entering his guilty pleas. Taylor has failed to demonstrate that his counsel’s performance was deficient in any way. Taylor also argues that no factual basis existed for his guilty pleas. However, Taylor stated under oath that he was not coerced into entering his guilty pleas and that he understood what he was pleading to. Taylor argues that in light of his mental condition, a hearing should have been conducted on this matter to determine his actual innocence. Since Taylor offered no medical evidence that he was incompetent to stand trial, this issue lacks merit. Taylor argues that the court erred in failing to grant him an evidentiary hearing. However, Taylor offers no proof of error by the trial court on this issue. Failure to comply with M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) renders an argument procedurally barred. Taylor argues that his sentence is cruel and unusual punishment. As a general rule, sentencing is purely a matter of trial court discretion so long as the sentence imposed lies within the statutory limits. The sentence imposed by the trial court was within the jurisdictional limits. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
