Pruitt v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-CP-01716-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CP-01716-COA ; 2008-CT-01716-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-01-2010 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: The judgment of the Circuit Court of Marshall County denying the motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel 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: 09-22-2008 Appealed from: MARSHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: DENIED MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF Case Number: CV08-254 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Michael W. Pruitt |
MICHAEL W. PRUITT (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER | ||
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 - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael Pruitt pled guilty to the crimes of sexual battery, aggravated assault, and kidnapping. He was sentenced to life in prison for sexual battery, twenty years for aggravated assault, and thirty years for kidnapping. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Pruitt argues that he was under the influence of antidepressants when the crime took place and during the guilty plea proceeding, which prevented him from making intelligent and voluntary guilty pleas. Pruitt also argues that he was coerced to plead guilty by his trial counsel and the district attorney. The plea colloquy shows that Pruitt was not taking any medication at the time he entered his guilty pleas. The trial court made sufficient inquiry into Pruitt’s mental competency, and there was no evidence to suggest that Pruitt lacked the ability to appreciate the effects of his guilty pleas. The plea colloquy also belies Pruitt’s assertion that he was coerced into entering his guilty pleas. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Pruitt argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Pruitt argues that his trial counsel failed to tell him that he was suspended from practicing law in Tennessee. Pruitt entered his guilty plea long before his attorney’s reciprocal suspension in Mississippi. Furthermore, Pruitt fails to articulate how he was adversely affected by the attorney’s suspension in Tennessee. Pruitt also argues that his trial counsel failed to investigate the case. However, he has failed to state with particularity what the investigation would have revealed and how it would have altered the outcome. Pruitt argues that his trial counsel failed to interview witnesses. However, Pruitt failed to provide the trial court with a list of those witnesses, their affidavits, or their proposed testimonies to support his claim. Pruitt also argues that his trial counsel failed to test the State’s evidence. However, the State provided the factual basis in support of Pruitt’s guilty plea, and Pruitt affirmed that the evidence was true. The plea colloquy is contrary to Pruitt’s sundry claims. The trial court thoroughly examined whether Pruitt’s guilty pleas were voluntary and whether Pruitt was satisfied with his trial counsel’s representation. Pruitt has failed to present any evidence besides his bare assertions to support his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and this is not enough. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
